•  ■%• 


REGULATIONS 


l^ibrari)  of  %  Jfrtcral-strttt  Soddu 


IN    BOSTON. 


Tlie  I.ibiary  is  open  to  tlic  use  of  all  llie  Members  of 
llir   Fnicral-sdv.'et  Congregational   Society. 

II. 
IJooks  are  delivered  from  the  Library  at  the  close  of 
tlie  morning  service  on  every   Sunday.      Books  must  be 
rt'turnod   at   the  same  time. 

III. 
Each  person  may  take  two  volumes  at  a  time. 

IV. 

No  volume  can  be  taken  from  the  Libi'ary,  until  its 
title,  together  with  the  name  and  residence  of  the  person 
on  whose  account  it  is  taken,  has  been  recorded  in  a  book 
k«pt  for  the  purpose. 

v. 

Oclavo  and  duodecimo  volumes  may  be  kept  four 
weeks;  other  books,  only  two  weeks. 


Thi<  book  was  placed  in  the  Library 

No. 


Dr.  Chauncfs 

REPLY 

T    O 

Dr.  Chandler's 

APPEAL  defended; 


REPLY 

T   O 

Dr.    Chandler's 
'  APPEAL  DEFENDED  ( 

WHEREIN 

His  Millakes  are  rcaified,  his  falfc  Arguing 
refuted,  and  the  Objections  againll 
the  PLANNED  American  Episcopate 
fhevvn  to  remain  in  full  Force,  notwith- 
ftanding  all  he  kas  oifered  to  render 
them  invalid. 


B  Y 


Charles  Chauncy,  D,  D. 

Pallor  of  the  Firil  Church  in  Boston. 


*  Whenfuch  as  our  T>\octUx\s  fprcng  up^  the  Church 
was  prefently  broke  into  Pieces,  and  by  odious  Contenti- 
ons and  Divifions  became  a  Scandal  and  Scorn  to  Unbe^ 
it  ever  s.  To  read  but  the  J^s  a f  Councils  ^and  the  Hijlsry 
tfthe  Churchy  and  there  find'  the  horrid  Contmtiens  of 
Prelates  again/1  each  other  ;  theParties  which  they  mad^^ 
their  running  up  ard  down  the  World  to  Princes^  and 
Ruler iy  and  Synods^  to  bear  down  one  another  ;  it  iviU 
do  as  much  to  grieve  and  amaze  the  Soul  of  a  fiber  Chrif 
tian,  as  aipiojl  any  Hifcry  in  the  World  he  can  ps-' 
rufe.*  Baxter'j  Ireatife  of  Epifcopacy^  F.  165. 


BOSTON: 

Printed  by  Daniel  Kneelawd,  oppofite  tbe  Fro- 
bate-Ofiiice,    in    Quecn-Sti^eta     for    Tkc:.:A5 

jLsverett,  in  Corn-Hill, 

Md^CCjLXX, 


INTRODUCTION. 


D 


R.  Chandler  propofes,  at  the  clofe  of  his 
H-    defence,  (p.  266)  '  that  the  debate 
be  reduced  within  a  narrower  compafs,  and 
that  nothing  that  does  not  immediately  re- 
late to  the  merits  of  the  caufe    be  ofterea  . 
on  either  fide.'      Had  he  made  this  propo- 
fal,  when  he  undertook  to  open  the  plan  tor 
an  American  epifcopate,  faying  nothing  but 
•what  direaiy  tended  to  give  it  ad  million  in- 
to the  mind  as  reafonable,  he  would  at  once 
have  leffened  my  labour,  and  prevented  the 
trefpafs  that  has  been  committed  upon  the 
patience  of  thofe  who  have  been  our  rea- 
ders.     If,    in    his  '  appeal,'  in  my   '  an- 
fwer*  to  it,  and  in  his   '  defence'   of  it,  ma- 
ny paecs  are  filled  with  have  no  more  relati- 
on to  an  '  American  Epifcopate,'  than    the 
difpute    '  whether  Aaron's    hnnen  Ephod 
was   of  blue,    or    a  fea-water-green,     the 
Doaor  very  well  knows  where  the  blame 
ought  to  be  laid.      No    one    would    have 
thought  it    an  afperfion,  if  he  had  taken  ic 
wholly  to  himfelf.     The  limitation  he  propo- 
fes though  proper  at  firft,  does  not  now  weaf 
fo  equitable  an  afpeft.at  leaft.as  comingfrom 
him.     He  has  ttken  the  fuUeft  liberty,  not 


vi        I  N  T  R  O  D  U  C  T  I  O  1^,^ 

only  in  his  *  appeal,*  but  in  his  '  vindica- 
tion' of  it  ;  and  now  he  would  reftrain 
others,  keeping  them  within  thofe  bounds 
he  has  leaped  over,  and  putting  it  out  of 
their  power  to  remark  upon  the  greateft 
part  of  what  he  4i as  been  p^eafed  to  ofier* 
This  does  not  look  fair.  However,  from 
ajuftfenfeof  that  refpedt  which  is  due  to 
the  Publick,  I  fnall  endeavour  to  make  the 
tryal  of  their  patience  as  light  as  may  be  ; 
ftill  depending  fo  far  upon  their  candor,  as 
to  fay  what  may  be  nccefTarv  in  juftice  to 
inyfelf,  though  it  iliould  not  always  imme- 
diately relate  to  the  grand  point  in  difpute. 


The   Do^or  further  propofcs,  '*  that  no 
invcdive  or  abufe,  nothing  that  favors  of 
bigotry  or  barbarity,  be  fuffered  to  mingle 
in  the  debate  •,    but  that  ingenuous,   fober 
reafoning   fhould   decide    it.**'       He   would 
have  made  this  propofal  with  a  better  grace, 
if  he  had  more  tully  exemplified,  in  his  own 
conduct,   what   he    has    here   recomcnded. 
It  is  true,  his   air  in  writing  fometimes  car- 
ries the  appearance  of  candor  and  mildnefs  ; 
nor  is  it  generally   mifDecoming  the  gentle- 
man, or  the  chriftian.      But  will  any  pre- 
tend, that  his' manner  is  not  too  often  very 
like  their's  who  are  aduated  by  a  fpirit  of 
'  bigotry  ?'   Has   he  no  where   treated  his 
opponents  with  '  inv"66live  and  abufe  ?*  Are 
there  no  inftanccs,  in  which  he  has  had  re- 
courfe  to  evafivc  art,  rather  than  folid  argu- 
ment  ?    Has  he   never  fubftituted  popular 
exclamation  in  the  room  of  good  realoning  ? 

Do 


INTRODUCTION.  vii 

Po  we   never  find  him  '  difingennoufly'  en- 
deavouring to  make  others  think  he  has  an- 
fwered   powerfully,   when   he  himfelf  knew 
he  h»d  faid  nothing  to  the  purpofe  P    Nay, 
has  he  never  fo  difhonoured  his  own  charadler 
as  only  to  laugh  loud,  when  fo  prelTed  as  to 
be  unable  to  make  a  juft  or  fobsr  reply  ? 
The  intelligent  reader,  I  doubt  not,  has  ob- 
ferved  indances  in  all  thefc  kinds  -,  and  we 
Ihali  have  occaQon,  in  proper  time  and  place, 
to  hold  them  up  to  publick  view.     After  all, 
the  propofal  here  made  is  not  objedled  to,  fa 
far  as  1   am  concerned  in  it.      1   efleem  it  a 
chriftian  as  well  as  reafonable  rule  of  conduct, 
and   fhall  accordingly   endeavour   to  govern 
myfelf  by  it  in  what  may  follow.   Should  the 
Doftor  think   fit  to  write  again,  it  will  be 
eminently  proper  in  him  not  to  forget  to  do 
hitnfeir,  as  he  propofes  that  others  ihould  do 
in    this   debate.     1  would     advife    him     to 
bear  it  habitually  on  his  mind,  that  Epifco- 
palians  as  truly  as  other  denominations   of 
chriftians,  may  be  fo  ftrongly  biafled  in  fa- 
vor of  their   own   fide,  as  to  be  equally  in- 
capable of  perceiving  the  force  of  the  moil 
pov/erful  argument  ;  and  that  it  may,  with 
«s   much   truth,    be  faid  of  them,  that   *  ift 
feeing  they  will  not  fee,'  and  '  in  hearing 
they  will  not  underftand.' 


I  SHALL  not  think  it  impertinent  to 
fubjoin  here,  that  it  ought  not  to  be 
looked  upon  as  any  fault  of  mine,  if  the 
reader  fhould  be  detained  from  the  grand 
2P0INT    in   difpuie,  longer  than  he   might 

rcafonably 


viii        INTRODUCTION; 

reafonably  expert.  1  chufe  particularly  to 
mention  this,  that  the  Dodor  may  be  up- 
on his  guard  for  time  to  come,  and  not  a6t 
fo  unfair  a  part  as  to  endeavour  to  fallen 
that  blame,  in  this  refpeft,  upon  others, 
M^hich  he  only,  in  juftice,  is  accountable 
for  5  as  he  has  put  them  upon  taking 
notice  of  what  he  has  faid  that  is  fo- 
reign to  the  MAIN  SUBJECT,  Or  to  pafs  it 
over  as   impertinent. 


I  now  go  on  to  offer  what  I  have  to  fay 
in  reply  to  the  Dodor's  '  defence  ;'  and  in 
the  doing  of  it,  I  ihall  follow  the  order  in 
which  he  has  given  us  his  thoughts. 


Reply 


Reply  to  Dr.  Chandlers 
Introdudory  Obfervations. 


HE  complains  bitterly,  in  this  part  of 
his  defence,  cfpccially  of  the  manner^ 
in  which  he  has  been  oppofcd.  As  I 
am  not  the  named  pcrfon  againft  whom  thefe 
complaints  are  made,  and  feel  within  my  felf 
a  confcioufnefs  of  not  having  given  any  jull 
©ccafion  for  them,  it  would  be  impertinent 
in  me  to  remark  upon  them.  The  W^hig 
^ndCefjtincl,  who  are  particularly  pointed  oac» 
have  evidenced  to  the  world  their  ability  to 
vindicate  themfelves  *,  and,  it  is  probable,  th* 
Doctor  will  hear  from  them,  if  they  fhould 
think  it  worth  while  to  take  notice  of  the 
charges  he  has  exhibited  againft  them.  I 
would  not  be  taxed  with  officioufly  going  out 
of  my  own  line  to  do  that  which  is  the  pro- 
per bufinefs  of  others,  and  for  the  doing  of 
'i^hich  they  are  much  better  qualified  than  I 
can  pretend  to.  be. 

None  of  the  Doflor's  obfervations  have 
any  fpccial  reference  to  me,  until  we  come 
to  the  laft,  which  he  calls  "  a  moft  mate- 
rial one,"  and  to  which  he  "rcquefts  the 
attention  of  every  reader."  I  alfo,  in  my 
turn,  could  make  a  requeft.  It  is  only  this 
jreafonable  one,  that  the  reader,  while  he 
jattends  to  the  lDo(5tor's  '*  moft  material  obfer- 
yation,**  would  impartially  confidcr  what 
inay  be  offered,  wherein  it  relates  to  mc,  ia 
iuifwcr  to  it. 

After  a  •  dead  filence/  for  a  while,  a$ 
■        B  » 


lo  REPLY  TO  THE 

to  any  *  difT^tisfaflion*  relative  to  the  plant 
that  had  been  propofed,  '  it  was  at  length 
dircovefed  (fays  the  Dodtor)  that  a  number  of 
perfons  had  entered  into  a  combination  to  run 
down  the  appeal,  and  vigoroufly  to  oppofe, 
at  any  rate,  the  refidencc  of  Bifhops  in 
America.'  The  Combination  he  here  Ipeaks 
of,  with  as  pofitiY^- durance  as  though  he 
himfeif  had  been  an  aiTociate,  has  nor,  tak- 
ing me  into  it,  the  leaft  foundation  in  truth  ; 
but  is  wholly  a  phantomofhisovvn  imagination. 
1  never  heard  of  a  '  fettled  plan  of  operation/ 
in  which  I  was  to  bear  a  part,  and  make  what, 
the  Doctor  fays,  '  may, in  fome  fcnfe,  be  called  a 
regular  attack  upon  the  appeal,'  till  I  had  this 
information  of  it  from  him.  The  honeft  truth 
is,  I  undertook  to  anfwer  the  appeal,  becaufe 
J  could  hear  of  no  one  at  New-York,  Philadel- 
phia, or  in  any  part  of  New-England,  who  ap- 
peared difpofed  to  engage  in  this  v/ork.  Had  I 
then  known  what  thcDoclor  fays  was  '  at  length 
^ifcovered,'  1  (liould  certainly  have  flood  by  a 
fptdlator  only.  As  it  had  been  pubiiflied, '  thac 
if  no  objections  were  offered  againft  the  propof. 
cd  american  Epifcopatc,  it  would  be  taken  for 
granted  all  parties  were  fatiificd,'  1  was  unwill- 
ing/i?/^/^y^/^;?r^  fliould  be  condrued  an  argument 
of  gateral  fatisfa^lioft,  when  I  knew  nothing 
was  more  contrary  to  the  truth  5  and  it  was  for 
this  fpecial  reafonthat  I  entred  upon  an  affair, 
which  I  faid,in  the  advertifcment  to  my  anfwer, 
^  would  cxpofc  me  to  much  ill  will,'  This 
has  beeii  fhamefully  verified  fince  by  the 
fcurrilous  treatment  I  have  met  with  in  fome 
of  the  New- York  periodical  papers,  occafi- 
pned  by  my  attempting  to  comply  with  an  cpif- 
lopal  defire  publickly  made  known  j  although 

th« 


M  P  P  E  A  L  D  E  F  E'NBEP.'       U 

thcmanmr  in  which  it  was  done  ha  sbccncomj^ 
plained  of  by  fome  as  ovcr-n^ild  and  candid. 
In  confequence  of  the  Doftor's  imaginary 
plan  of  operation,  a  furious  onfet  has  beea 
made  on  the  harmkfs  well-naeant  appeal,  be- 
gun by  Dr.  Chauncy  in  *  regular  form/  and 
fupportcd  by  the  Whig  and  Centinel  in  *  week- 
ly fldrmifhes,'  in  which  they  were  alTifted 
by  *  occafional  falUes  of  a  number  of  volun- 
tiers,'  and  the  whcxle  performed  with  '  a$ 
inuch  fpirit  and  warmth  as  the  friends  of  thefe 
adventurers  could  wiQi/  And  what  was  the 
fuccefs  ?  Shockingly  bad  on  the  fide  of  its 
opponents  !  Fcr,  lays  the  Do^or,  *  notwith- 
ftanding  all  their  refolution,  alertnefs,  and  cau- 
tion, they  have  been  obliged  to  give  up  the 
grand  ©bjed  of  the  conteft  as  above  explain- 
ed.' And  here  he  particularly  brings  me  ia 
as  giving  up  this  grand  point  in  difpute. 
Says  he,  '  Dr.  Chauncy  declares  for  himfelf 
and  his  brethren  (p.  iSo)  in  the  following 
words  ;  JVe  dejire  no  other  liberty^  than  to  be 
left  unrejifained  in  the  exercife  of  our  religioujr 
principles^  in  fo  far  as  we  are  gc&d  members  of 
fociety.  And  we  are  perfc5fly  willing  Epif* 
copalians  fheuld  enjoy  this  liberty  to  the  fulL 
If  they  think  Bifhop^  in  their  appropriated  fi^ifi^ 
were  conflituted  by  CHRIST,  or  his  ^pof- 
tieSy  we  obje^  not  a  word  againjl  their  havr 
ing  as  many  of  them  fls  they  pleafe^  if  they 
will  be  content  to  have  them   with   authOri- 

-TY  ALTOGETHER   DERIVED  FROM  CHRI^T.^ 

So  again,  in  p.  189,  ^  It  is  not  simply  the 
exercife  of  any  of  their  religious  principles  tkat 
would  give  the  leafi  uneafinefsy  nor  yet  the 
exercife  of  them  under  as  many  purely  spi- 
KiTUAL  Bi(ldop  as  they  would  w\fh  to  have  ; 
B  2  14 


it  REPLY  TO   THE 

l^ut  their  having    Bi/bops  uvder  a  state  2"^ 
STABLiSHMENT.*      Thefc,   it  IS  acknowledg- 
ed,  are   my  words   ;    but   with  what   truth, 
or  jufticc,  the  Dodor  couid   fay,  they  contain 
that  in  then>  which  looks  like   my  '  giving 
vjp  the  main  point'  in  debate,   is  bed  known 
to  himfelf.      He  muft   have   been   ftrangely 
jnattentivcj  if  he  did    not  perceive,   that  the 
Bifhops  in  his  plan,  and  thole  I  fpakc  of,  were 
DSSENTiALLY  different,  arid  confequendy  that 
I  might  oppofe   the  former,  while  I  had  no 
objedion  againft  the  latter.      What  he  has 
here  introduced  with  no  fmall  parade,  and  pe- 
remptorily affirmed   for  truth,  amounts  to  no 
more  than  a  declaration  of  the  {tw^t  he  is  plea- 
'    fed   to  put  upon  my  words  ;    which  fenfe  it 
may  be  worthy  of  notice,  1  had  purpofely  ta- 
ken care  to  guard  againft,  in  as  explicit  a  man- 
ner as  I  well  could.     The  Bifliops  I  had  '  ilot 
a  word  to  objed:  to,'  the  Bifhops  that  *  would 
give  no  uneafinefs/  were  particularly  defcri- 
bed  as  having  '   authority    altogether^ 
FROM  CHRIST,'  and  as  being  '  purely  spi* 
kitual'  Bifhops.      Thefe,  the  Do^or  could 
not  but  know,  were,  in  my  apprehenfion,  quite 
different  from    the  Bifhops    propofed    in    his. 
plan,  and  that  1   had  largely  endeavoured  to 
ihow  wherein   l^at^  were  fo.      And  yet,  at  the 
very  entrance  upon  his  defenc<s,  and  before  be 
had  fo  much  as    attempted  to  offer  a  word  iii 
proof  that   his  BiHiops,  and  thofe  I  expreffed 
my  approbation  of,  were  the   same,  he  would 
prepolTefs   his  readers  with   the  thought,  that 
this  was  the  real  truth  ;  and  confequently  that' 
I  had  wrote  many  fcores  of  pages  in   bppofi- 
tion  to  that,  againft  which  *  I  had  not  a  word/ 
to  objcd.'     Is  this  '  ingenious  V    Would  nob 

the 


^APPEAL  DEFENDED/      13 

£he  Dodor  have  done  himfelf  more  honour, 
and  his  caufe  more  fervice,  if,  in  a  way  of  '  fo- 
ber  rcafoning,'  he  had   endeavoured   to  make 
it  evident,  that  I  had  afted  a  weak,  ridiculous, 
^nd  inconfiftent   part,   before  h€  virtually  told 
the  world  that  I  had   fo  done.     Notwithftand- 
ing  this   boafted  alTurance,  enough  was  laid 
in'^the  anfwer  to  the  appeal  to  fatisfy  any  rea- 
fonable  man,that  the  BiQiops  propofed  by  Dr, 
Chandler,  and  thofe  '  not  objeded  to'  b)   Dr. 
Chauncy,were  as  widely  different,  as  this  world 
is  from  another ;  and  it  may  hereafter  appear, 
ihat   the  afiigned  reafons  for   this   difference 
have  not  been  in  the  lead  invalidated  by  any 
thing  the  Dodor   has  offered  in  his   long  la-, 
boured  defence.      He  has  indeed  very  High-, 
tily  pafTed  over  this  most   essential    part 
of  the  difpute  ;  though  more  than  once  called 
ViDon  to  make  out  the  right  of  Epifcopalians 
to  fuch  Eilhops  as  are  fpecified  in  his  publifh-? 
cd  plan.      If  he  would  do  juttice  to  his  owa 
charader,  and  promote  the  caufc  he  is   en-. 
gaged  in,  he  muft  not  fubftitute  arbitrary  mif-. 
conftrudion    in  the  room  of  folid  reafoning^ 
5knd  upon  this  footing  triumphantly   afTure  his 
readers,  '  the   nxatter    being  brought  to  this 
iffuc,hc  might  gi7e  up  all  further  controverfy.^ 
The  Dodor,  having  faid  (p.  11)  that  '  his 
chief  bufinefs  was  witfa  me,'  goes  on  to  '  con- 
traft  his  own  difSdence  with  my  gigantic  con- 
fidence.'     What  gave  the  occafion  for  this  ? 
The  reader  may  wonder  when  I  tell  him  us 
T^fe.    The  Dodor  introduced  his  appeal  by  in- 
forming  the  Publick,  '  that  he  was  appointed- 
to  this^fervice  by  the  convention  of  the  cler- 
gy of  New- York,  and  the  Jerfies,   with  fomo 
of  their  brethren  from  the  neighbouring  pro, 

Tinces;  = 


Ji  l^EPLY   TO  THE 

vinces  :•  Whereas,  I  introduced  mj  anfwer  to 
.he  appeal  by  faying, .  that  I  could  not  rtend 
to  fuch  dift,ngu.fhing  honour,  but  was  prevail- 
ed upon  to  engage  in  the  caufe  by  the  defire  of 

infers  herefrom,   that  he  is  a  man  of  '  diffi- 
dcnce,'  but  that  I  am  a «  giant  for  confidence  ' 

r^  t  A  "7^^  T  *°  ^•"i"<="''y  important,  as 
to  be  feleaed  by  a  venerable  body  of  the 

borne  of  his  readers  may  poffibly  efteem  this 
inccnfe  offered  to  himfelf  an  illuftration  of  his 
Angularly  modeft'  diffidence  ;'  but,  I  am  fure. 
none  of  them  can  account  his  treatment  of  me 
a  jult  fpccimen  of  that  'ingenious  reafoning' 
ftr.pt  of  all  '  abufe,'  which  he  recommends  fo 
others  in  the  management  of  the  prcfent  dif- 
pute.      It  would  be  eafy,  becaufe  it  would 
be  natural,  bj- comparing  the  manner  of  the 
JJoftors  '  coming  forward'  with  mine,to  maice 
reprifals  by  inverting  the  order  of  the  contraft 
he  has  brought  to  view,  but  theoccafion  is  too 
tnfliBg,and  I  an'tdifpofed  to  deal  in  that  which 
may  look  like  returning  '  railing  for  railing.' 
I  HAD  complained,  '  that  the  arguments  in 
fupport  of  the  Petitions  for  an^  American 
Epifcopate  had  been  kept  fecret,'  and  that  '  an 
authcntick  knowledge  of  them,  though  appli- 
ed for,  was  rejeaed."      To  this  the  Doftor  re- 
phes  (p.  .2);  1  know  nothing  of  fuch  appli- 
cation,  or  rejeaion.'     1  am  difpofed  to  think, 
he  here  wrote  as  he  thought.      But,  if  he  had 
taken  time  for  recolleaion,  it  is  probable  he 
would  have  called  to  mind  what  he  might  not 
then  have  had  in  aSual  remembrance.     Did 
be  never  hear  pf  a  formal  application  made 

by 


.APPEAL  DEFENDED.'       I5 

,  Dr  Stiles  in  a  letter  to  the  Clerk  of 
the  New-York  convention,  defiring  a  copy  of 
h  irpetltions,  efpecially  the.r  Re""on  ;«^he 
K,nL  and  of  the  formal  negative  put  upon 
rh"^;eafonable  rcqueft  ?  D.d  he  -ver  hear 
of  any  controverfy  between  the  Americaa 
Wh  gjand  >hisClerk  of  the  convention,  relat.ve 

1  could  were  it  proper,  name  one  tnember  at 
leaft  of  this  convention  who  was  applied  to  for 

Sen  the^  applications'    and  '  rejedions'  com- 
5  bed  of,  fh'ough  he  knew  no^^ing  of  them 
But    favs  he,  '  the  complaint   is   aUogethcr 
!rounE  ;  V«r  the  plan  upon  which  it  was 
?  opofed  that  Bilhops  fhould  be  fent   to  A  me- 
nca  andthe  arsumems  afterwards  ma^c  uje^fxn 
fumrtof  oJpetifms,  aitualiy  were  pubhfh- 
V/a  confiderable  time    before  the  petitions 
v/er- fent.-And  afterwards  it  was  voted  by 
our  convention,  that  more  particular  informau, 
onftZld  be  publi(hed,andthe  whole  matter  ex- 
Sd,forthe  fatistadion  of  a  I  parties ;  m  con- 
-    CuTnce  of  which  the  appea  was  drawn  up. 
and  publilhed.'      What  is  all  this  to  the  pur- 
pofe^    It  is  true,-  fuch  arguments,  in  fuppprc 
Ke  plan  for  American  B.lhops.  as  were 
Sought'^fit  to  be  publickly  ufed    wc  have 
teen  made  acquainted  with.     But  the  quef. 


i6  REPLY    TO   THE 

tion  is,  are  thefe  the  only  ones   that  enforced 
the  petuions    that  were  fent  Home   ?    Will 
the  Doaor  venture  to  fay,   no  others    were 
ijfed  ?    jfthis  is  the  truth,   how  comes  it   to 
pafs,  that  thefe  petitions  are  fccicted  to  this 
day  ?    If  ALL  that  they  contain  has  been  al- 
ready  publilhed,  what  pofTible  harm  can   there 
be  in  giving  copies  of  them  ?    It  ought  not  to 
be  taken  amifs,  if,  in  this  view  of  the  cafe,  k 
is  generally  fuppofcd,that  fome  things  are  faid, 
in  fupport  of  thefe  petitions,  which   the  Cler- 
gy  who  fent  them,   are  not  willing  Oiould  be 
publickly  known.       It  cannot   ocherwife   be 
accounted  for,  that  they  fhould  thus  fleadily 
refufe  a  copy  of  them.  '  If  any  credit  is  due 
to  the  word  of  a  Gcnticman  of  well  eftablifhed 
reputation,   who  was  favoured  with   a  fight, 
though  not  with  a  copy,  of  one  of  thefe  peti- 
tions, it  contained   that  in  it  which  has  never 
i)ecn  made  publick,  by  any  who  have  wrorc 
in  fupport  of  the  plan  for  an  Epifcopate  in  the 
Colonies*      I  am  fully  fatisficd,   in  common 
with  many  others^  that  the  true  caufe,  at  bot- 
tom, why  we   can  have  no  *  authentic  know- 
ledge' of  the   contents  of  thefe  petitions   is, 
their  having  that  inferted  in  them,  whi€h  tht 
Epifcopal     Clergy,    for  reafons  beft    known 
to   ihemfelves,    do    not   chufc    the    publick 
iliould  be    let    into.       The    Doaor    would 
iiave  aded  a  more  fair  and  honourable  part, 
if  he  had  plainly  faid  fo,  and  not  endeavoured 
to  turn  his  readers  off  with  difguifedamufcment. 
He   now  proceeds  to  the  '  defence*  of  his 
*  appeal;'  which  leads   me,  in  purfuit  of  his 
town  method  to  naake  fome  futabie  reply  t^ 
what  he  has  fccn   fit  fo  offer. 


Reply  to  Dr.    Chandler's 
Firft  Seaion. 


THIS  feaion  hs  dcfigned  as  a  defence,  in 
part   at   leaft,   of  the   '  Ilcetch   of  argu- 
mcnts'  he   had  brought  to  view,   m  his  '  ap- 
peal,'  in  favour  of  Epifcopacy  m  general.      K 
is   a  pity    he    put   himlelf  to  the  trouble   ot 
ei^in?  us   this    flcetch.      1  rcmonarated  againft 
ft,    in    my    anfwer,   p.    U,  and   for  thefc   rea- 
fons.      The  plea,  in   what  he  had  undertaken 
would,  by  his  own  confeffion,  '  be  equally  valid, 
whether    thefe  principles  were   fciunded   right- 
ly,  or  wrongly  •,'  and  no  valuable  end  could  oe 
anfwered  bfthis  trouble,  unlcfs  to  increafe  the 
number   of  his  pages,   which   would   detain 
his  readers  from  attending  to  the  main  point 
he  propofed  for  debate   ;    and  ncediefsly  too  as 
he  gave    us  only  a  repetition  of  arguments  thac 
had  been  before  repeated  over  and  ovex  agiun 
fo  as  to  be  even  naufeous.      He  has  feen    fit 
frankly  to  acknowledge,  defen.  p.  77'     ^^^^  ^e 
was  convinced  what  was  faid  upon  the  general 
fubitft,  however  juft  in  itfelf,  or  proper  m  the- 
ory, had  been  better  omitted.'      And  yet,  he 
has  wrote  no  lefs  than  ninety-eight  Pj>S«  (fo^« 
a  great  deal  than  one  third  part  of  the  ^.'hok  of 
what  he  has  offered)  in  fupport  of  that,  concern- 
ing which  he  was  'convinced' It  had  been  bet- 
teFif  he  had  faid  nothing.     And  what  is  afto- 
p  niining 


i8  REPLY    TO   THE 

mfhing,  not  being  fatisficd  with  barely  infinu- 
sting,  he  has  peremptorily  declared,  p.  T'],  that 
tis  '  adverfaries  have  eagerly  laid  holi  of  a  fub- 
jcft  vrhich  has  been  already  debated  for  almoft 
«oo  years,  and  will  probably  be  debated  for  200 
years  to  come  •,  by  this  means  keeping  the  prin- 
cipal OBJECT  of  this  controvcrfy,  which  is  an 
American  Episcopate,  at  a  diftance,  and  as 
much  as  pofiiblc  out  of  fight.'  Who  could  have 
imagined,  that  one  who  profeflcs  a  regard  to  his 
own  honour  and  charadtcr,  could  be  capable  of 
refleding  blame  upon  others,  not  only  in  am 
inftance  wherein  he  himfelf  has  been  groLly  faul- 
ty, but  wherein  the  faultinefs  of  others,  if  in- 
deed they  are  at  all  faulty,  is  v/hoUy  owing  to 
him  as  its  ical  and  only  occafional  caufe  ?  Was 
not  the  Dodlor  the  very  perfon,  who,  by  his 
necdlcfj  '  fketch  of  arguments'  to  fupport  Epif- 
copacy  in  general,  *  kept  out  of  fight  the  grand 
objcdt  in  purfuit  ?'  And  did  he  not  hereby 
render  it  necefiary  for  thofe  who  anfwered  hini 
10  do  the  like,  at  lead  for  a  while,  and  until 
they  might,  with  allowance  from  him,  bring  this 
objcd  into  view  ?  He  is  iiill  incxcufably  in- 
attentive upon  this  head  ;  for,  fays  he,  p.  77, 
*  the  Dodor  feems  to  have  a^cd  upon  this  plan, 
exerting  himfelf  upon  the  fubjed  of  Epifcopacy 
as  if  it  was  his  chief  bufinf  fs  in  anfwering  the 
appeal  \  whereas  the  curiofity  of  the  Public  cal- 
led him  to  purfue  another  object.* — I  had  em- 
ployed but  about  50  pages  in  200  upon  the  ge- 
neral fubjcdl  of  Epifcopacy  \  and  this,  after  hav- 
ing remonftrated  againft  the  Dodor's  obliging 
me  to  take  this  needlcfs  trouble,  and  excufing 
myfelf,  on  this  account,  to  the  Public,  for  poft- 
poning,  for  a  while,  the  confideration  of  the 
grand  point  in  viev/  :  And  yet,  he  unaccounta- 
bly 


^APPEAL  DEFENDED/        19 

biy  brings  mc  in  making  that  my  chief  bvsi- 
NESS,  which  wai  only  a  Imall  part  of  it,and  would 
not  indeed  have  been  any  part,  if  he   had  not 
unfeafonably   and   needleisly    called  mc   to    it. 
The  '  other  objcdt',  which,  fays  the  Dodtor,  in 
the    next  words,  *  the  curiofity  of  the  Fublick 
called  him  to  purfuc,  is  an  objedl  from  which  I 
propofc  to  be  no  longer  diverted  by  an  endlcfs 
difpure  concerning  Epifcopacy.*   And  yet,  if  the 
leader   can  give  credit  to  it,  he  has  ftill  gone 
on,   in  contradidion   to  his  €wn   purpofc,   for 
more  than  to  pages  -,    though  he  had   before 
wrote  upon  the  fame  fubjedt  more  than  70.   Per- 
haps, when  he  calmly  rcfleds  upon  his  injudi" 
cious  unfairneis,  not  to  fay  inconfiftency  with 
himfclf,  as   above  opened  to  him,   he  may  be 
put  to  the  blufh.      It  is  impoflible  he  fhould 
think,  he  has  ihewn  himfclf  fo '  ingenuous*  as 
might  rcafonably  have  been  expedtcd  :  Nor  will 
it,  after  this,  appear  any  thing  ftrange,  if  we 
fhould  meet  with  ftill  more  grofs  mifreprefcn- 
tations. 

The  Dodor  introduced  the   firft  fedion   in 
his  '  appeal'  with  obferving,   '  that  the  church 
of  England  is  epifcopal,  and  confequently  holds 
the  ncccfTny  of  Bifhops  to  govern   the  church, 
and  to  confer  ecclclialtical  orders.'     It  v/as  faid 
in  anfwcr,  '  that  the  church  of  England  neither 
holds,  nor  is  obliged  to  hold,  the  divine  right 
,  of  Biiliops  in  the  appropriated  {cnk,  to  govern 
the  church,  or  confer  holy  orders  ;  and  that  none 
of  her  public  offices,    or  any  part  of  the  fydem 
of  her  condud,  are  founded  on  this  principle.' 
The  Doftor  replies,  def.  p.  16,  '  If  it  be  by  vir- 
tue only  of  the  jus  humanum  of  Epifcopacy  that 
Bifhops  are  necefTary,  ftill  the  ends  for  which 
thev  are^ncccifary  cannet  .be  obtained  withou: 


io  REPLY  TO    THE 

them  fo  long  as  we  are  fubjedl:  to  the  authority 
that  requires  them,'  It  is  at  once  eafy  and  ftif- 
ficient  to  fay  here,  as  the  authority  requiring  is 
by  fuppofition  meerly  human,  no  complaints  can 
reafonably  be  made  by  thofe  who  could  have 
none  to  make,  if  they  acknowledged  and  ho- 
noured no  one  but  JESUS  CHRIST  as  su- 
preme HEAD  of  the    chriftian  church. 

But  the  jus  divinum  of  Epifcopacy  is  what 
the  Doaor  has  all  along  pleaded  for,  and  it  is 
THIS  RIGHT  only  1  ever  pretended  was  not  the 
do6lrine  of  the  church  ofEngland.  And,upon  fur- 
ther e'xamination,  in  confcqaence  of  what  theDoc- 
tor  has  oflFered,!  am  abundantly  confirmed  in  the 
pcrfuafion,  that  this  do6lrine  was  never  intend- 
ed to  be  delivered  as  her  faith,  in  any  of  her 
public  offices  •,  no,  not  in  her  '  preface  to  the 
book  of  ordination, 'which  hasthe  (Irongeft  afped: 
this  way.  The  Dodlor  thinks  the  divine  right 
of  Epifcopacy  is  .clearly  and  fully  afferted  in  this 
preface.  Having  cifed  thofe  words  of  it  he  fup- 
pofes  make  for  his  purpofe,  which  I  (hall 
throw  into  the  margin,  *  he  obfervcs  upon  them 

as 


4^ 


«  It  IS  evident  fo  all  men  diligently  reading  holy 
fcripture,a[id  ancient  authors,  that,  from  the  apoftles 
time,  there  have  been  thefq  orders  of  minifters  in 
CHRIST'S  church  ;  Bifliops,  Priefts,  and  Dea- 
cons. Which  offices  were  evermore  had  in  fuch  re- 
%'erend  eftimation,  that  no  man  might  prefume  to 
execute  any  of  them,  except  he  were  firft  called, 
tried,  examined,  and  known  to  have  fuch  qualities 
as  arc  rrquifite  for  the  fame  ;  and  alio  by  public 
prayer,  with  impfofition  of  hands  were  approved  and 
admitted  thereunto  by  lawful  authority.  And  there- 
fore, to  the  intent  that  thefe  orders  may  be  continu- 
ed, and  reverently  ufcd  and  efteemed  in  the  church 
of  England,   no  man  ihaii  be  accounted  or  taken  to 

be 


•  APPEAL  DEFENDED.'.       2^: 

as  follows,  *  If  the  reader  will  now  carefully  con-- 
fider  this  paffage,  let  him  fay.  Whether  it  is  eafy 
to  conceive  a  more  direft,  pofitivc,  and  compleat 
teftimony   in  favour  of  Epilcopacy,  than  is  here 
given  by  the  coaipilers  of  the  ordinal.     The  dil- 
rinftionofthe  three  orders   of  BiOiops,  Pricfts, 
and  Deacons,  is  in  this  preface  fully  aflerted  ;— 
the  antiquity  of  this  diftinftion  is  deduced    from^ 
the  Apotlles  time  j'-the  evidence  in  favour  o. 
it  is  faid  to  be  contained  '  in  holy  fcripture,  and 
ancient  authors  ;'— and  the  clearnefs  of  this  evi- 
dence is  fuch  that  it  muft  appear  '  to  all  men  di-- 
ligently  reading  the  holy  fcripture.*      In  conle- 
quenceof  this  doarine,'  no  man  is  to  be  account- 
ed  a  lawful  *  Bifcop,  i^ieft,  or  Deacon  in   tne 

churciji 

be  a  lawful  Bllhop,  Prieft,  or  Deac.n,  in  the  church 
of  England,  or  fuffered  to  execute  any  o;  thi  fa.d 
funaions,  xcept  he  be  called,  tried,  exam.ned,  and 
admitted  thereunto,  according  to  .he  forn.  hereafter 
foUowing,  or  bath  had  formerly  epifcopal  confecrati- 
on.  or  ordination.  ,      ,         ,•   i  •       i 

•  I  would  give  notice  here,  that,  after  long  feeicmg,  I 
y.Z  at  length  helped  to  a  fight  of  the  old  ordma  . 
from  the  library  of  the  long  deceafed  veneraWe  Dr. 
hcuafe  Mather.      Whether  it  was  one  of  the  firft 
nrinted  copies,  or  a  reprint  from  one  of  ttiele,   I 
cannot  fay  j  becaufe  the  year  in  which  it  was  prmt- 
ed Ts  not^mentioned.     But,  by  its  being  printed  m 
the  Old  Englith  letter,  it  muft  be  of  ancient  date. 
At  the  bottom  of  the  title  page  are  thefe  words  'Lon- 
don, printed  by  Rokrl  B»rker  ^rA  John  Bid,  Vrxn- 
te?s  o^he  King's  moft  excellent  Majefty.     Upoa 
compaiing   thiI  with  the  present  ordinal  I  find 
th^'in  c'onformity  to  the  co-m,flion  e-n^d   by 
Kins   CharUi    the    2d     t9     feveral     Bifhops     and 
S  Divines,  to  review  the  book  or  common  pray- 
e     and  the  book  of  the  form    and  manner  of  mak- 
Si'd  confcciatingofBifhops,  Prufts,  and  Deacons, 


93  XEPLY   TO  THE 

churchof  England.'— If  I  ftodd,  ;„  my  own 
words,  point  out  the  inconclufiycnefs  of  the 
Doaors  reafoning  here,  he  and  his  friends  might 

be 

and  to  prepare  fuch  alteratiens  and  addition!  at 
they  thought  fit  to  offer  that  they  did  acceXg^J 
inake  and  prepare  a  number  of  alteration,  and  addl! 
tions,  and  lome  very  momentous  ones  ;  which  were 
,p.roved  by  h.s  Majefty.  and  eftablifl;e7by  aSTf 
Parliament  in  the  14th  year  of  his  reign.  IThiV  i, 
the  ordinal  that  has  been  in  ufe  ever  ffnce.  I  Iha 
haveoccafion  to  point  out  moft  of  thefe  alterations, 
in  margmal  notes,  upon  what  may  follow.      One 

Inl^T^    'J'"fT   1  «>»"  t»te  notice  ofh„^ 
In  the  OLD  ordinal  the  words,  in  the  orefarf  =.r, 
•which  offices  were  evermore  had  in  f^  ^'eren? 

might  prefume  to  execute  any  of  them  fthe  before 
mentioned  offices]  except  he  were  iirft  called-and 
alfoby  public  prayer  and  impof.tion  of  hands,  ap- 
proved  and  admitted  thereunto.  And  therefore  L 
the  intent  that  thefe  orders  ftould  be  continued,  ^nd 
reverently  ufed  and  efteemed  in  this  church  ofEng- 

r' !.    «-l^''"'''-'.*ll"  "°  '°^"  ("ot  ""^ing  «  this 
prefcnt,  Biftop,  Prieft,  nor  Deaco.)   fhall  execu  e 

and  admitted,  according   to  the  form  hereafter  fol- 
lowing.     In  the  NEW,  they  are  thus  altered, '  which 

rifn'lT"  ^''"'""'■f   ''"'^/"   f"ch  reverend  eftima- 
tion,  that  ni,  wan  might  prefume  to  execute  any  of  them 
except  he  were  iirft  called-and  alfo  by    publif  0*^-* 
er  and  impofition  of  hands  were  approved  and  admit 
ed  thereunto   by  lawfuUuthority.     And  therefore    to 
;  '"i?'^r  ""n/haUie    accounted,  or   taken  to  be, 
,  Uwfut  B.Jhop     Prteji,  or  Deacon,  in  the  church  of 
England,  orfuffered  to  execute  any  of  the  faid  fumf ions, 
except  he  be  called,  tried,    examined,  and  admitted 
VTu  f  S°''''"8  '^  t^  fo™  hereafter  f#Ilowing, 
«r  hath  had  formerly  epfcopal  confecration   or    orii^a. 
tion.       It  IS  obvious,  ,t  firft  fight,  according  to  the 
WisiNT  wdinal,  that  neman  maybe  lookfd  upon 


as 


'APPEAL  DEFENDED.'        2j 

be  difpofed  to  cry  out  prejudice  !  obftinacy  ! 
pervcrfc  blindnefs  !  1  (hall  therefore  give  the 
proper  reply,  at  leaft  in  parr,  in  the  language  of 
two  famous  epifcopal  writers.  Bifhop  Hoad* 
ly,  who  has  defended  Epifcopacy  in  a  more  maf- 
tcrly  way  than  any  one  I  have  ever  yet  met  with, 
in  anfwer  to  Dr.  Calamy^  thus  cxprelTcs 
himfclf  upon  this  very  pafTagc  in  the  preface  to 
the  book  of  ordination,  f  'You  wholly  alter 
the  form  of  that  fentence  in  the  preface  to  the 
ordinauon-office,  on  which  you  ground  this  ob- 
jcdlion  ;  and  fecm  to  me  to  mifreprcfent  the 
plain  defign  and  intent  of  it.  For  there  is  fomc 
difference,  I  think,  between  thefe  two  fentenccs, 
*Bi(liops,  Priefts,  and  Deacons,  are  three  diftindt 
orders  in  the  church,  by  divine  appoint- 
ment \  and  'from  theApoftlcs  times,there  have 
been  thcfc  orders  in  CHRIST'S  church,  Bilhops, 
Priefts,  and  Deacons.*  The  former  of  thefe  is 
your's  ;  and  leads  people  to  think,  that  the 
principal  intent  of  this  fent«nce  you  fcruple,  was 
to  lay  it  down  for  an  undoubted  truth,  that  Bi- 
fhops,   Priefts,   and  Deacons,  are  three  diftincl 

orders, 

as  a  LAWFUL  minifter  of  the  church  of  England, 
who  has  not  had  epifcopal  ordination  ;  but  it  it  does 
not  appear,  that  this  was  the  cafe  while  the  old  or- 
dinal was  in  ufc.  Certain  it  is,  that  the  com- 
miflioncd  reviewers,  King  and  Parliament,  did 
not  think  this  an  indifputable  point  :  otherwife  they 
would  not  have  made  an  alteration,  the  principal  de- 
fign of  which  was  to  put  this  matter  beyond  all  doubt. 
It  is  in  fa£l  true,  that,  under  the  old  ordinal,  thofe 
were  admitted  to  officiate  as  miniftcrs  in  the  church 
of  England,  who  were  not  epifcopally  ordained  i 
whereas,  I  fuppofe,  an  inftance  of  this  kind  cannot 
be  produced  fmce  the  14th  of  Charles  the  fecond. 
t  Vid.  his  rcafonablcnefs  of  conformity,  p.  57,  ^S. 


24  REPLY  TO  THE 

orders,  (in  the  mod  drift  fenfc  of  that  word,and 
in  oppcfition    to  thofe  cpifcopal  men,    who   did 
roc  approve  of  that  word  taken    in   fo    (lri(5l  a 
fenfc)  and  that  by  divine  appointment.   The 
latter   is  the  fentence,   as  it  is  cxprefled    by  the 
church  itfeif  ;  and  the  defign   of  it  is  plainly  no 
more,  but   to  fignify,  that  liifhops,   Prielts,    and 
Deacons,  have  been  in  the  church  from  the  be- 
ginning,   diflinguillied    from   one    another    by 
their  peculiar  offices.      But,  if  you   take  a  plea- 
furc   in    rcprefenting,  and  underllandmg,   every 
thing  in  the  way  which  carries  moil   difficulty 
2long  with   it,  we  cannot    help    it.'      Another 
champion  in  the  caufe  of  the  church  ofEngland, 
ipeakmg  in  reply  to  ihis  lame  difiicuity  objcded 
by   Dr.    Cdamy  againft  miniflerial  conformity, 
obfcrves,  ^  with  reference  to  the  words  on  which 
this  difficulty  is  grounded,  than  they '  fay  nothing 

of  DIVINE    RIGHT  or  APPOINTMENT  ;     but   Only 

that,  from  the  Apodles  times,  there  have  been 
thefe  orders  :• —  from  which,  the  mod  that  can  be 
inferred  is,that  in  fuch  churches  where  there  has 
been  need  of  them,  or  occafion  for  them  all, 
there  have  been  three  fuch  ranks  of  minifters 
for  the  government  and  indrudion  ofCHFJST's 
church,  from  the  times  of  the  Apodles  ;  vvhich 
yet,  by  Mr.  Calamy\  leave,  does  not  prove  a 
DIVINE  APPOINTMENT  cf  all,— there  having 
been  other  things,  in  the  Apodlcs  days,  whicq 
yet  for  all  that  are  not  allowed  to  be  of  divine 
appointment.'  § 

The 

*  Vid.  OMsfs  againfl  Cahmy. 
§  It  may   ^'^^  improperly  be   further  faid,  the  upper 
ho'jfe  of  convocation,   no  longer  than  1702,  appear 
to  have  been  of  opinion,  that  Epifcopacy,   upon  the 
foptina:  of  divine    apostolical    imjtitution, 

has 


«APPEAL  DEFENDED.*         125 

Thi  Doflor  may  perceive,  by  thefc  quota- 
tions from  two  famous  writers  in  behalf  of  the 
church  of  England,  that  thole  who  canroc,  in 
the  prefent  Cnfe,  be  taxed  wiih  '  prtjodices  that 
might  influerxe  them  to  mifrcprcrentation,* 
could  difcern  nothing  in  this  *  orciinarion-prc- 
face'  that  '  Teemed  to  have  an  afpefl'  in  favour 
of  the  DIVINE  RIGHT  ot  Epifcopacy.  It  is 
true,  it  accounts  no  one  a  lawful  Bifl-iop, 
or  Pried,  or  Deacon,  of  the  church  of  England, 
unlefs  admined  to  office  by  lawful  authority, 
in  I  he  manner  prefcribed.  But  there  is  a  wde 
difierence  between  lawful,  and  divine  autho- 
D  riry: 

was  not  the  do£lrinc  of  the  church  of  EngiancI,  not- 
withftanding  a)l  that  is  faid  in  the  preface  to  tha 
ordinal.  For,  it  is  obftrvable,  the  lower  houfe^ 
this  year,  in  an  addrefs  to  their  Lordfhips  begg«d 
that  the  declaration  they  had  made,  and  figned, 
might  be  entered  on  their  books,th.e  purport  of  whicU 
was,  *  that  whereas  they  had  been  fcanialcufly  repre- 
Icnted  as  favourers  of  Prefbytery,  in  oppofition  tcr 
Epifcopacy,  they  now  declared,  that  they  acknow- 
ledged the  ORDER  of  Bifhops,  as  superior  to  Pref- 
byters,  to  be  of  divine  apostolical  insituti- 
ON.'— -The  fame  day  they  prefcnted  an  additional 
addiefs,  ngnifying  that  whereas  this  their  declaiaticn 
had  given  new  offence,  and  that  from  having  been 
traduced  for  allowing  Too  LITTLE  to  Epifcopacy, 
they  were  accufed  of  ascribing  too  much  to  it, 
they  begged  therefore  that  their  Lordftiips  would 
take  the  do£lrinc  aforefaid  into  their  mature  confi- 
deration. — Calamys  abridgement,  p.  637,  638.  It 
is  poilible,  the  upper  houfe  of  convocation  might 
be  as  well  acquainted  with  the  preface  to  the  ordi- 
nal, and  its  true  meaning,  as  Dr.  Chandler  ;  and  vet, 
they  accufe  the  lower  houfe  of  afcribing  too  muck 
to  Epifcopacy,  in  fpeaking  of  the  order  of  Bifhops 
as  SUPERIOR  to  Prefbyteis  by  Divine  apostoli- 
cal INSTITUTION, 


»^  REPLY  TO  THE 

r'i7"  ,h.?T  '^''  ^''\''  ='®™'  ''"''  the  Doc 

//««  are  by  GOD  appropriated  to  Bilhops,  and 
fo  appopnated  to  them  a3  that  they  ought  o  Se 
cxerc,f.d  by  no  other,  and,  ,f  rhey  arc.  That  ^icy 

i  a  r;"'"'"/  •    ^''  '''•"'  if  he  can,  give  he 
caft  rhadow  of  proof  that  this  idea  wa^  iSdcd 

EnlnH    Tr'^lf ''''  l'"^'  °f'he  church  of 
fyf,nlna    "'S-'^'  ''  '^^'  '°  ^°  'his,  it  will  be 
a  vain  thing  in  him  to  pretend,  that  this  is  the 
Qoanne  ot  the  Englifa  church,  as  held  forth  in 
.h.s  preface.      The  plain  truth  is,  the  '  book  o£ 

7onrT°"'  '^V^'^'r''  '°-'^'^''  -^  have  been 
confiderrng  ,s  formed  upon  the  fuppofition,  that 
Prefbyters  have  the  power  of  or  Ja' ion  in  com- 
nion  w.ch  Bifcops  ;  nor  can  it  in  any  other  view 
be  made  confiftent  with  itfclf.  This,  becaufe 
a  matter  of  importance,  even  in  relation  to  the 
grand  point  m  debate,  and  not  commonly  ton- 

by  giving  the  Pobl,c  a  large  extraft  from  Mr 
P^rfand  .sWs  'judgment  of  the  church  of 
England  m  point  of  ordination  ;'  wherein  it  is 
lhewn,th.t  •  fte  allows  a  divine  inherent  rifih? 
)n  the  Prefbyter's  office  to  ordain.'  And  fhc 
rather  chule  to  exhibit  this  extraft,  becaufe  i   i' 

£ZtTc,^  I""?*;'"  -^  ^'''^y  '•'^"i^^d  from 
the  other  fide  the  Atlantic,  and  is,  perhaps  the 
cn.y  one  in  America.  pcrnaps,  me 

Onlv,  before  I  proceed,  I  would  take  leave 
juft  to  inform  the  Dodor,  that  I  have  tryed  the 
-hon'^ftf"'  h^propofes.  and  find,  that  I  can 
honeftly  and  confutently  fubfcribe'  to  this  or- 
dinatK.n  preface,  with  the  allowance  only  of 
thtf'TrT/  -'°''  """^''''  '""'  '  interpreta- 
«!rcd  are  obliged  to  recur  to,  before  they  can. 

if 


'APEAL  DEFENDED.'         2^ 

if  they  pay  any  regard  to  confcience,  fubfcrlbc  to 
the  thirty-nine  arciclts  of  |the  Englifh  church, 
not  to  fay  any  thing  of  the  book  of  common- 
prayer,  and  other  forms  to  which  they  are  obli- 
ged to  afltnt  and  confent. — To  go  on. 

Says  the  writer  above-mentioned,  '  It  is  vcrjr 
obfervablc,  that,  for  above  an  hundred  years 
after  the  happy  reformation  in  England,  the 
form  of  committing  to  Biihops  and  Frefbyters 
their  office  and  work  made  no  diftinflion  at  all 
in  the  prder  ;  as  is  evident  to  all  who  have 
perufed  the  former  book  of  ordination.  In 
the  ordination  of  a  Deacon,  the  office  sn^%  ex-, 
prefTed,  take  thou  authority  to  execute  the  office  of 
a  Deaccn.  This  v/as  a  diftindl  office,  and  the 
perfon  was  ordained  to  a  diftinft  order  in  the 
church.  But  in  the  ordination  of  a  Bifnop,  or 
9  Prefbyter,  it  does  not  appear,  by  the  commif- 
(ion  that  was  given  (hem,  that  they  were  cftcem- 
cd  diftind  orders.  ^^  For  there  was  no  men- 
tion 

f  It  appears,  ©n  the  contrary,  that  they  were  cfteemed 
one  and  the  fame  order-  it  may  to  this  pur^ofe  be 
worthy  of  fpecial  remark  here  :— In  the  old  ordi- 
nal, previous  to  the  ordination  of  Priefts,  yft^s 
XX.  from  the  19th  t©  the  24th  verfe,  was  appointed 
to  be  read,  for  the  cpiftie  ;  which  mud  be  efteenaed 
highly  impertinent,  if  they  were  not,  as  episcopoIs, 
to  RULE  [poimanein]  AS  wcll  as  feed  the  church 
of  GOD.  For  the  gofpe),  it  is  faid  fhall  be  read. 
Matt,  xxviii.  verfe  i8,  19,  10  ;  or  elfe  John  xx, 
from  the  19th  to  24.th  verfe,  bsth  which  pafTagesof 
fcriprurc  contain  the  higheft  commilion  of  gofpcl- 
©flicers  ;  and  the  laft  of  them  that  power  of  binding 
and  loofin;^^  which  none  may  prefume  to  cx^rcife, 
who  are  not  intruded  with  the  government  of  the 
church.  The  reviewers  of  the  old  ordinal  were 
clearly  and  fully  fatisiisd  of  this,  and  have  according- 

lyp 


iS  REPLY  TO  THE 

tion  made  in  the  words  of  ordaining  them,  thst 
k  was  for  the  one,  or  the  other  office.  in 
both  it  was  faid,  *  receive  thou  the  HOLY 
GHOST  ;•— but  it  was  not  added  (as  it  is  in 
the  PRESENT  book  of  orders)  '  ior  the  office 
and  work  of  a  Piieft,  or  for  the  office  or  work 
of  a  Bifhop  :f  So  that  it  is  plain,  there  was 
no  real  intrinfic  difference  granted  by  the  ordi- 
nation commiffion  to  thofe  of  the  firft  or  fccond 
order.  The  powers  granted  to  the  one,  for 
ought  appears,  were  granted  to  the  other  ;  for 
as  the  Gommiffion  they  received  made  no  diffe- 
rence in  the  name  or  fu n<5lion,  fo  neither  did 
it  in  their  authority.  Whatever  fpiritual  pow- 
ers the  one  had  given  them,  to  the  other  were 
given  the  fame.  Had  Bifnops  rhe  power  of  or- 
dination committed  to  them,  fo  had  Prtfbyters 
too,  who  received  the  lame  commifiion  by  the 
fame  folemnity,  in  words  of  the  fame  impor- 
Eanre,  and  therefore  muil  be  invefted  with  the 
fame   divine  powers/ 

And 

!y,  in  the  new  book  of  or^ers^  taken  sway  thefe 
texts  from  the  ordeiing  m  Prief^s,  and  infer  ted  them 
*s  the  ep'f^les  and  and  gofpels  to  be  read  previous  to 
the  conlccration  of  Biflicps. 

«f  In  the  OLD  orciinal,  when  the  Eirn«>ps  and  the 
Prieif^s  prcfenf  lay  their  hands  on  tlic  pcrfoo  to  be  or- 
dained a  Prieft,  thr  Bijf^iop  is  dire(n:ed  to  <ay,  '  Re- 
ceive the  HOLY  GBOS  F  :  whofe  fins,*  &c.— In 
the  WEw,  the  words  fee  muft  ufc  are  thefe,  'Re- 
ceive the  HOLY  GHOS  F  forth^  office  and  work  of 

I  SI  Prif/i  in  the  church  of  GOD  noixj  commitud  to  thee 
h  the  imppfitioa  of  cur  hands,  Whofe  fins,*  &c.— 
So  alfo  in  ordering;  a  Biftiop,  there  is  the  hke  alte- 
ration. In  the  OLD  book,  the  Arch- Bifhop  and  Bi- 
ftiops  prefent  fhall  lay  their  hands  ©n  the  elcdtcd  Bi- 
fliop,  the  Arch-Biihop  faying,  *  Take  the  HOLY 

GHOSr, 


•APPEAL  DEFENDED.'        29 

And  that  the  church  of  England  conti- 
nues in  the  fame  mind  to  this  day,  I  doubt  not 
to  make  appear  from  the  prejent  book  of  or- 
ders  ;  J  to  which  every  Clergyman  is  obliged 
to  give  his  '  unfeigned  aflent  and  confent/ 
This  therefore  cannot  be  pretended  to  be  only 

the 

GHOST,  and  remember  that  thou  ftir  tip  the 
pitV,  &c.— In  the  new,  the  v/ords  are,  <  Receive 
the  HOLY  GHOST /^r  the  work  and  office  of  a 
Bijhop  in  thi  church  of  GOD  now  committed  unto  thee  by 
the  impofition  of  our  hands^  in  the  name  of  the  FA-- 
THERy  and  of  the  SON,  and  of  the  HO  ir  GHOST. 
Amen*  And  remember,  &c. 
}  This,  it  is  true,  has  been  grfatly  altered  by  the  ap- 
pointed reviewers,  in  the  reign  of  Charles  the 
fecond  ;  and,  no  doubt,  with  a  direct  view  to  exalt 
Bifnops,  an^  deprefs  frefbyters.  Some  of  thcfc  al- 
terations have  been  already  pointed  out.  There 
are  yet  many  more.  It  may  not  be  improper  to  no- 
tice them  here.  In  the  old  book,  Pricfts  were 
called,  in  the  exhortation,  '  MefTengers,  Watch- 
men, Stewards,  and  Pastors  of  the  Lord  ;'  but  in 
the  Niw,  the  word  PAfTORs  is  defignedly  left  oat, 
taking  from  Priefts  the  pajhral  power,  and  making 
them  little  or  nothing  more  than  Bi(hop*3  Curates. — 
In  the  OLD  the  Bifhop  afked  the  Prieft,  whether  he 
did  think  in  his  heart,  that  he  was  truly  called,  ac- 
cording to  the  will  of  GOD,  and  the  order  of  the 
church  of  England,  to  the  minifiry  of  Priefthood  : 
in  the  new,  it  is  to  the  order,  as  well  as  miniftry  ; 
making  priefthood  an  order  q{  itfelf  diftindt  froaa 
deacenfhip  and  Epifcopacy. — In  the  old,  the  tw« 
Biftiops  who  prefcnt  the  ele6led  Bifliop  to  the  Arch- 
biftiop,  fay,  '  Moft  reverend  father  in  GOD,  wc 
prcfent  unto  you  this  godly  and  well  learned  man  to 
be  confccrated  a  Bifhop  :*  In  the  new  it  is,  to  bs 
ORDAINED  as  wcll  as  confecrated;  intimating  here- 
by, that  he  was  to  be  commiffioned  to  a  new,  dif- 
tindj  and  higher  oiHcc  in  the  church.    In  the  old» 


JO  REPLY  TO  THE 

the  particular  opinion  of  fome  private  p^rfons; 
but  muft  be  owned  to  be  the  cftablifhed  doc- 
trine of  the  church,  to  which  all  her  fons  are  by 
a  mod  facred  vow  bound  to  cpnform. 

The  Kubrick^  immediately  tfccr  the  ordina- 
tion-prayer fays,  '  the  Bifhop  with  the  priests 
prefent  (hall  lay  their  hands  feverally  upon  the 
head  of  every  one  that  recelvcth  the  order  of 

pricflhood.' 

that  part  of  the  litxny  was  read,  which  fays,  «  that 
it  may  pleafc  thcc  to  illuminate  all  Bifhops,  Pas- 
tors, and  Minifters  of  the  ^church  with  true  know- 
ledge.— In  the  NEW,  the  words  arc,  *  Give  grace, 
we  befeech  thee  to  all  Bifhops,  the  Pastors  of 
THY  CHURCH  ;*■»— as  though  none  were  Pastors 
liut  Bifhops.  And  whereas,  in  the  old  book,  the 
prayer  for  the  Bifliop  was,  *  that  it  may  pleafe  thee 
to  blefs  this  our  brother,  and  fend  thy  grace  upon 
kim,  that  he  may  duly  execute  the  office  whcrcunt* 
he  is  called  to  the  edifying  thy  church  ; — In  the 
NEW  it  is,  •  that  he  may  faithfully  ferve  thee  in  this 
office  to  the  edifying,  and  well  governing,  «f 
thy  church/— 

It  is  glaringly  evident,  from  thefe  alterations,  tkat 
the  reviewers  of  the  old  ordinal  were  much  higher 
in  their  notions  of  Epifcopacy  than  the  firft  reform- 
ers, in  whofe  days  it  was  compiled  and  eftablifhed. 
And  it  is  plain  likewife,  that  thty  were  m  Laud'% 
fcntiments  concerning  Epifcopacy,  and  intended  to 
laake  thefe  the  doctrine  of  the  church  of  England. 
But  they  happily  failed  herciR.  Whether  this  was 
©wing  to  inattention,  or  to  a  non-acceptance  of  the 
other  alterations,  they  might  have  made,  either  by 
tke  King,  or  Parliament,  1  cannot  fay.  Certain  it 
is,  notwithflanding  all  the  alterations  that  now  ap- 
pear, and  have  been  eftab'ifhcd,  that  the  power  of 
ordaining,  which  is  pretended  to  be  the  moft  es- 
sential one  belonging  to  Biftiops,  is  ftiil  left  un- 
touched, or  rather  ftands  confirmed  in  the  pr.es ent 
•rdinal  ;  as  may  be  fecn  abundantly  proved  in  the 
aboy«  extract  from  Mr.  ^havi^ 


^APPEAL  DEFENDED'         51 

pricfthood.'  As  pricfts  arc  not  to  ordain  with- 
out the  Bifiiop,  fo  neither  is  the  Bifhop  to  or- 
dain without  Priefts.  If  the  former  would  be 
cftecmed  invalid,  fo,  for  ought  I  can  fee,  muft 
the  latter  too  :  I  am  fure,  it  would  be  exprcfsly 
contrary  to  the  rules  of  the  church,  by  which 
fomc  Priefts  are  required  to  be  always  prefcnc 
with,  and  afiifting  of  the  Bifhop  in  all  ordina- 
tions ;  as  appears  by  the  Rithrick  abovcmention- 
cd,  compared  with  other  parts  of  the  cfficc,  and 
Can.  31,  34, 

It  cannot,  with  any  colourable  pretence,  be 
faid,  that  the  joining  of  Prcfoyters  with  the  Bi- 
fhop in  this  folcmn  ad  does  only  fignify 
their  witncffing  to,  or  approbating,  the  thing 
done.  If  this  were  all,  it  might  as  well  be  done 
by  the  laity  who  were  prefenr,  or  the  Deacons  5 
and  yet,  it  is  certain,  they  are  not  permitted  to 
lay  on  hands  in  ordination  (as  the  Priefts  are)  -, 
though  they  are  permitted  to  be  fpedators,  wit- 
nefles,  or  approvers,  as  well  as  they.  Befidcs, 
it  is  evident  from  the  ordination-commiflion,thar 
the  office  of  Prieft  is  conveyed  by  the  Bifhop 
and  Prc(byters  jointly.  *  Receive  the  HO- 
LY GHOST  for  the  office  and  work  of  a  Prieft 
in  the  church  cf  GOD,  now  committed  unto 
thee  by  the  impornion  of  our  hands.'  From' 
whence  it  is  as  plain  as  words  can  make  it,  that 
prieftly  orders  in  the  church  of  England  are  to 
this  very  day  conferred  by  the  Bishop  and  his 
Presbytbrs  together  ;  that  the  office  is  re- 
ceived from  their  joint  authority  ;^  that 
the  Bifnop  ought  not  to  ordain  without  his  Pref- 
byters,  any  more  than  without  prayer,  or  impo- 
fition  of  hands,  which  are  all  made  efientially 
neceflary.-,  yea,  that  he  cannot  do  it  without  a 
very  material,   but    abfolutely    unwarrantable, 

alteration 


32  REPLY  TO  THE 

alteration  of  the  words  in  the  commiffion,  and 
perverting  the  defign  of  it,  changing  ihe  word 
OUR  into  MY,  and  faying,  '  by  the  impofition  of 
MY  hands,  inftead  of  our  hands  •,  by  which 
variation,  how  fmall  foever  it  may  feem,  the  Bi- 
Hiop  would  lodge  the  fole  power  of  ordaining 
in  himfclf,  contrary  to  the  lerter  and  intention 
of  the  office,  which  neceffarily  fuppofes,  rhac 
Prefbvters  have  the  fame  intnnfic  power  with 
the  Bidiop  :  otherwif(fit  would  be  no  other  than 
a  folemn  piece  of  mockery  to  deliver  the  commif- 
fion  in  the  name  of  thePrefbyters  equally  with 
the  Bifliop.  For  how  couid  they  convey  pow- 
er to  othersvvhich  they  had  not  in  themfelves  ? 
None  certainly  fhould  lay  on  hands  at  all  in  giv- 
ing miniflcrial  authority,  buc  fuch  to  Vv'hole  of- 
fice it  belongs  to  commit  the  lame  dodrine  to 
others,  which  themfelves  have  received  a  com- 
milTion  to  be  teachers  of,  no  more  than  any 
Ihould  confecrate  the  elements  in  the  euchariit, 
who  were  never  impowcrcd  to  adminiHer  the 
facrament. 

There  is  not  the  Icaft  appearance  of  any  dlf- 
tin5lion  by  the  words  in  the  office,  that  the 
granting  the  commiffion  is  only  from  the  Biiliop, 
and  that  what  the  l^refbytcrs  do  in  conjundlion 
with  him  is  only  confenting  to  what  he  does. 
The  church,  in  the  preface  to  the  book  of  or- 
ders, fuppofes  impofition  of  hands  necefiary  to 
the  conveying  the  office  of  the  prieflhood.  She 
therein  requires  priests,  by  the  Ruhkk,  to  lay 
on  hands  together  with  the  Bifhop  :  and,  upon 
the  performing  of  that  a£lion,  the  Bifliop  de- 
clares in  exprcfs  words,'  that  the  office  and  work 
of  a  Pried  is  committed  unto  thee  by  the  impo- 
fition of  OUR  hands ;  which  can  never  be  meant, 
in  any  proper  way  of  fpcaking,  of  the  Biffiops 

bands 


*  APPEAL  DEFENDED/         33 

hands  alone,   but  incluc'e  his  Prcfbyters,   who 
were  partners  in  laying  hands  with  him,  a^  hav- 
ing a  (hare  aUb  in  conveying   the  power   which 
was  by  granted  by  that  acftion,  by  a  right  inhe- 
rent in  iheir  office  ;  though,  by  the  ecclcfiaftical 
conftitution   of  the  country,  the-y   are  reftrained 
fronn  exercifing  it  alone,  as   the  Bishop   him- 
self ALSO  IS.       He  may  indeed  ordain  a  Dea- 
con without  the  concurrency  of  his   Prefbyters, 
and  in  this  cafe  the  impofition  of  his  own  hands 
alone  is  required  :    whence  it  is  plain,   that  the 
church  nriakes  a  manifeft  diliindion  betwixt  what 
the  Billiop     can  do  alone,  and  what  he  cannot 
do  WITHOUT   his  Prefbyters.       She  allows  hiia 
to  ordainDcacons  by  his  sole  power,  and  there- 
in the  office  is  conferred  only  by  the  impofiti- 
on  of    his  own  hands':   but   when    he  "s  to  or- 
dain  Prielts,  he  mull  then  have  the  concurrence 
of  his  Prefbyters  with  him,  and  the  office  is  faid 
10  be  conferred  by  the  impofirion  of  our  hands, 
that  is,    of  Bifhop  and  Prefbyters  conjunctly. 
Thatisdoneby  both  together, which thechurch 
allows  not  to  be  done  by  either  separately. 
This    may  be    illuftrated  from  the  office  of 
'  confecrating  Biffiops,'   which  is   made   exadly 
to  correfpond  with   that  of  '   ordering  Priefls/ 
and  therefore  muft  be   allowed   to  be  a  parallel 
cafe.       In  this  office,  conformable  to  the  other, 
(mutatis  mutandis)  the  *  Kubrick*,  juft   after  the 
ordination-prayer,  requires  the  Arch-Bifliop  and 
Bifhops  prefent  (of  whom  there  mufl  be  two  at 
lead)   to  lay  their  hands   upon    the   elefted   Bi-. 
(hop,   upon    which  adion  the   Arch-Bilhop  im- 
mediately pronounces  the  commiffion,  (as   the 
Bishop  does  in   rSe  ordination    of  Pricfts)  but 
declares,  *  the  office  is   committed  by  the  impo- 
fition  of  OVR.  hands  j'  that  is,  ihc  epifcopal  func- 

E  «wa 


34  REPLY  TO    THE 

tion  is  conveyed  by  the  impofition  of  the  hand^ 
of  the  Arch-Bifhop  and  Birfiops  together,  with- 
out whom  he  ought  not  to  confecrate  a  Bi- 
fhop.  Now,  if  a  Bifhop  can  no  more  ordain  a 
Pried  without  the  concurrence  of  his  Presbyters, 
than  an  Arch-Bifhop  can  confecrate  a  Bifhop 
■wkhout  the  concurrence  of  his  Bifhops ;  if  Pref- 
byters  are  required  to  ufe  the  '  fame  action'  to- 
gether with   the    Bilhop    in   the    ordination  of 

*  Priefls,'  as  Bifhops  are  with  the  Arch-Bifhop 
5n  the  confecration  of  a  '  Bifhop,'  viz.  impofi- 
tion of  hands ;   and  if  the  commifTion  granted  to 

*  PrieHs'  by  the  Bifliop  and  his  PrefDytcrs  be  in 
the  '  fame  words'  with  the  commilTion  granted 
to  Bifhops  by  the  Arch-Bifhop  and  his  Bifhops, 
viz,  '  committed  unto  thee  by  the  impofition 
ef  OUR  hands  j'  it  mufl  undeniably  follow,  that 
Prefoyters  have  as  much  an  inherent  right  in 
their  ofHce  (in  the  opinion  of  the  church  of 
England)  for  ordaining  Friefls,  as  Bifhops  have 
in  their's  for  confecrating  Bifhops.* 

It  cannot  be  pretended,  that  the  Arch-Bifhop 
iiLONE  conveys  the  power,  and  that  the  Bifhops 
who  join  with  him  in  laying  on  of  hands  do  it 
rneerly  as  witneffes  to,  or  approvers  of,  his  a6l  ; 
becaufe  the  Arch-Bifnop*s  power  over  Bifhops  is 
granted  to  be  mcerly  ecclcfiaftical,  I  mean  owing 
to  human  inflitution,  and  not  to  a  divine  right. 
Let  men  make  what  pretenfions  and 
cvafions     they  will,     it   is    certain,   from    ib^ 

*  book  of  orders,'  and  the  pra£lice  ef  the  church 
of  England,  that  ihe  allows  Preibyters  to  ordain 
in  conjundlion  with  their  Bifhop,  which  muft 
be  iinderflood,  if  words  and  adtions  have  any 
determined  fenfe,  by  virtue  of  a  divine  right 
inherent  in  their  office. 

If  this  be  not  her  fenfc^  what  an  abfurdity 

muft 


^APPEAL  DEFENDED.*        S5 

muft  flic  be  guilty  of  in  ordering  their  concurrence 
in  the  fign,  who  have  no  manner  of  intereft  or 
right  in  the  minifterial  conveyance  of  the  thing 
fignified  by  it  ?  Juft  as  if  ic  Ihould  be  Hiid,  a 
Deacon  hath  powtr  to  ufe  the  words  of  inftitu- 
tion  in  Bapcifm,  and  to  apply  the  proper  ele- 
ment, but  yet  hath  not  power  to  baptife  ;  or 
that  a  Preibyter  may  confecrate  the  euchariftical 
.elements,  according  to  CHRIST'S  inftitution, 
and  diftribute  them  to  the  People,  and  yet  not 
have  power  to  adminiftcr  the  LORD'S  fupper. 

If  impofition  of  hands  in  ordination  be  a 
meer  cypher,  and  empty  formality,  in  Prefby- 
ters,  will  ic  not  be  concluded,  that  fo  it  is  in 
Bifhops  too,  and  that  the  laying  on  of  the  hands 
of  the  one  and  the  other  is  but  a  needlefs  ce- 
remony, and  fignifies  no  more  to  the  convey- 
ance of  minifterial  authority,  than  if  the  hands 
of  mcer  laymen  wereimpofed  ?  But,  if  this  ex- 
ternal rice  be  fuppofcd  to  convey  the  minifterial 
commiinon  from  the  Bifnop,  why  does  it  not 
import  the  fame  thing  from  Prefbyters,  who  are 
enjoined  it  by  the  fame  authority  as  the  Bifnop, 
and  in  conjundtion  with  him  ?  Will  not  every 
one  naturally  conclude,  that  fince  the  a^ion  is  the 
Jame,  fmceit  is  done  ^x  the  fame  time ^  in  the  fame 
manner^  with  ih^  fame  words^  and  declared  by 
the  Biftiop  himfelf  to  be  for  the  fame  end,  that 
k  conveys  i\iQ  fame  powers  r      Thus  Mr.  Shaw^ 

Upon  the  whole,  if  there  is  no  inconfiftency 
between  the  eftabliihed  ordinal^  and  the  preface 
to  it,  the  Bilhops  fpoken  of,  in  the  latter  are  not 
Bidiops  in  the  Dolor's  fcnfe,  that  is,  Bi- 
Ihops  who  are  divinely  vefted  with  the  exclufii}e 
right  to  convey  holy  orders.  For,  according  to 
the  appointed  rule,  no  man  can  be  ordained  a 
Prieft  without  the  laying  on  of  the  bands   of 

Preibytcxs 


36  REPLY    TO   THE 

Prefbyters  as   well   as  of  the  Bifhop.      The  or- 
daining   power    is    lodged,    not   in    the   Bifhop 
ONLY,   or  EXCLUSIVELY,  but  in  the  Bilhop^  and 
Prefbyters  conjunct;.y.      If  Frcfbyters  cannot 
ordain  by  then^ielvcs    alone,   neither  can   the 
Bifliop.     There  mud  be,  according  to  the  book, 
the  concurrence  of  both.     It  is  from  hence  evi- 
dent, thart    the  reilraint    laid  both   upon  B.fliops 
and  Prefbyters,  as  to  the  exercife  of  their  ordain- 
iBg  power,   is  meerly  eccleriaflicaL     The  church 
ot  England   certainly  allolvs  an  inherent  right  in 
BOTH   to  ordain,   thougji   fhc  allows  neither   to 
ex-ercile  this  right  but  within  certain  limitations. 
Aad    thcugh   fiie   accounts   none  lawful   Bi- 
fnops  or  Prefbyters  but  fuch  as  have  been  law- 
F-iTLLY   a ImitLcd,  to  office,  fhe  is   far  from  nul- 
lifying   rhe  orders   given  by  either.     She  no- 
where  d.  clares   ordination  by   Prefbyters  to  be 
invalid,  t^hough  fl^^e  efl:eem?5  it  not  lawful.   And 
hercm  (he  differs  from  thole  few  of  her  highflying 
fons,  who  would    make  their  own   uncharitable 
piOtions  her  avowed  dodrme. 

What  has  been  above  offered  in  proof,  that 
tht  jus  aivinum  of  Fpifcopacy,  according  to  the 
Dodor's  fcnfe  of  it,  is  not  contained  in  the  '  pre- 
face to  the  book  of  ordina.ion,'  will  receive  fur- 
ther illallration»  if  we  confider  what  were  the 
fenriments  of  the  firil  r  formers,  thofe  of  them 
in  ^"p:'C  al  who  had  a  hand  in  compiling  the  ordinal. 

I  HAD  fatd,  from  Dr.  Calamy^  (anfw.  to  the 
appeal,  p.  8  j  '  thai  in  the  year  13^7,  the  Arch- 
Biihops,  Bifhops,  Arch-Deacons,  and  Clergy  of 
England,  in  their  book  injtitled,  '  the  inflruc- 
tion  of'achriftian  man,'  fubfcribed  with  all  their 
hands,  and  dedicated  to  the  Ki'ig^  exprefsly  re- 
ft)lve,  that  i^'rietls  and  Bilhops,  by  GOD's  law, 
arc  oi^£  and  the  same.'  To  this  the  Doctor  re- 
plies 


•APPEAL  DEFENDED/        37 

plies  (  def.  p.  21)^  Collier  hai  given  an  ab- 
ftraft  of  the  moft  eflential  parts  of  this  book. 
In  this  abftrad  there  is  nothing  like  what  the 
Dodlor  would  prove  from  it,  but  fomething 
extremely  unlike  it/  C^///>r's  filence  is  to  lit- 
tle purpofe.  Meerly  an  omiflion  of  his,  which 
might  have  been  defigned  to  ferve  his  own  ends, 
ought  to  be  efteemed  as  nothing,  when  oppofcd 
to  dired  pofitive  evidence  given  in  the  cale  by 
one  of  an  eftabliihed  reputation  for  veracity, 
cfpecially  as  he  has  quoted  the  very  words  of 
the  book  itfelf.  And  as  to  the  pafTage  in  this 
abftraft,  which  is  '  fo  extremely  unlike*  to  what 
I  had  brought  to  view,  it  can  have  this  appear- 
ance to  thofe  only  who  are  difordered  in  their 
-fight.  If  there  is  any  '  unlikencfs,'  it  muft  be 
in  the  following  words,  which  the  Do6tor  has 
diftinguifhed  by  the  manner  of  printing,  *  Bi- 
shops are  author  if ed  hy  eur  Saviour  ta  continue 

THE  succession,  ^«^  PERPETUATE  THE  HI- 
ERARCHY.* But  It  ought  to  be  remembered, 
it  had  been  faid  before,  '  Bidiops  and  Friefts  are 
one  and  the  fame  thing' :  and,  if  fo,  ics  being 
faid  afterwards,  *  that  Bifliops  >are  authorifed  to 
continue  the  fucctdi  )n,*  conveys  precifely  the 
fame  idea  as  if  it  had  been  faid,  '  Pricfts  are 
authorifed' to  do  this.  This  pafTage  ^cannot  be 
made  at  all  '  unlike'  to  the  other,  unlefs  the 
whole  Clergy  of  the  church  of  England  in  that 
day  are  made  to  contradidl  themfelves;  for  which 
no  reafon  can  be  affigned  but  that  of  ferving  a 
prefent  turn. 

The  Dodor  allows,  that  the  book  intitlcd, 
*  a  neccflary  erudition  for  any  chriftian  man,* 
which  though  '  drawn  up  by  only  a  committee 
of  the  King's  nomination,'  was  yet  authorifed  by 
both  houfcs  of  Parliament,  prefaced  by  the  King 

himfclf. 


'^  REPLY  TO  tHE 

himfelf,  and  publifhed  in  1543  by  his  com-^ 
mand  ;  I  fay,  the  Dodor  allows  (p.  23)  that, 
in  this  book,  it  is  declared, '  that  the  fcripturc 
fpcaks  cxprefsly  of  no  more  than  the  two  orders 
of  Fricfls  and  Deacons  j'  confcquently,  Bifhops 
nouft  be,  in  the  apprehenfion  of  thefe  reform- 
ers, of  the  fame  rank  and  order  with  Priefts, 
their  officethe  fame,and  the  fuperiority  of  the  one 
above  the  other  by  the  ordinance  of  man,  and 
not  of  GOD.  But,  fays  the  Doftor,  from  Coh 
Her  *  the  erudition  makes  orders  one  of  the 
fcven  facraments,  and  defines  it  a  gift  of  grace 
for  adminiftracion  in  the  church  ;  that  it  is  con- 
veyed by  confecration  and  impofition  of  the  Bl- 
fhop's  hands  ;  that  in  the  beginning  of  chritti- 
anity,  this  charader  was  given  by  the  Apoflles/ 
He  then  adds,  '  how  to  reconcile  thefe  pafTages 
may  be  difficult  5  and  until  this  be  done,  they 
can  prove  but  little  on  cither  fide.'  There  is 
nothing  to  reconcile  in  thefe  paffages.  If,  as 
thefe  reformers  fay,  '  the  fcripture  makes  men- 
tion of  only  the  two  orders  of  Priefts  and  Dea- 
cons,' Bifhops  cannot,  in  their  opinion,  be  a 
diftind  order  from  Priefts  ;  confcquently,  when 
they  further  fay,  '  the  gift  for  ad  minift ration  in 
the  church  is  conveyed  by  confecration  and  im- 
pofition of  the  Bifhop's  hand,'  by  Biftiop  they^ 
muft  mean  an  officer  of  the  fame  rank  or  order 
with  Priefts,  unlefs  they  arc  made  foolifhly,  as 
well  as  needlefsly,  to  contradict  themrclves,when 
their  words  are  as  capable  of  a  confiftent  con- 
ftruflion. 

It  is  evident  then,  beyond  all  reafonable  dif- 
pute,  from  the  *  inftilution'  and  *  emdiricfi,* 
that,in  the  reign  of  Henry  the  Eighth,  '  Biftiops 
and  Priefts  were  one  and  the  fame  order'  in  the 
©pinion  of  the  church  of  England,      Bux,  fays 

the 


^APPEAL  DEFENDED/       39 

tlie  Do<5lor,  (p.  25)  *atthis  (lagc  of  the  reforma- 
tion, it  is  no  wonder  that  we  nneet  withfome  crude 
cxpreflions  relating  to  Epifcopacy.'  And  again, 
(p.  24)  '  among  the  dodrines  that  had  not  been 
fully  canvafied,  byCranmer  and  his  friends,  muft 
bs  reckoned  that  of  ecclefiaftical  government/ 
But  the  plain  truth  is,  the  fentiments  of  the 
church  of  England,relative  toBilhops  andPrieffs, 
were  much  the  fame  in  the  reign  of  Edward  the 
Sixth,  as  they  were  in  the  days  of  Henry  the 
Eighth,  ;  in  order  to  evince  which  1  had  re- 
courfe  (anf.  to  app.  p.  9)  to  the  '  feled  aflem- 
bly  called  by  King  Edward  for  the  refolution  of 
feveral  queftions  relative  to  the  fettlemenc  of 
religion.'  To  which  the  Do6tor  replies/ It  was 
at  this  time  [in  the  reign  o^  Henry  the  Eighth] 
and  not  ten  years  afterwards,  in  the  reign  of  £i- 
ward  the  Si.th,  as  Dr.  Cbauncy,  following  his 
blind  guide,  ^  the  Irenicumy  aflferts,   that  thefe 

queftions 

«  ThcDr. would  not  have  difcovercd  too  much  reverence 
for  a  celebrated  Biftiop  of  the  church  of  England, 
if  he  had  here  ufcd  a  fofter  epithet.  This  is  not  the 
firft  time  he  has  difhonored  himfelf  by  fpeaking  too 
flightily  of  one,  who  was  every  way  his  fuperior.  In 
a  marginal  note,  (p.  17)  he  adopts  the  fentiments, 
of  a  puny  writer,  in  one  of  the  New- York  peri- 
odical papers,  concerning  this  truly  great  man,  by 
calling  the  account  he  .gives  of  his  Irenicum  '  a  jull 
one.*  Says  he,  <  I  do  not  fcruple  to  declare,  that  I 
look  upon  the  Irenicum  to  have  been  a  hafty,  indi- 
£efted,  partial  account  of  principles  and  fafts/  If  he 
had  poflTeffed  a  tolerable  rfiaie  of  modefly,  he  would 
not  have  declared  his  opinion  in  fo  harfh  and  crude  2 
manner  concerning  a  work,  which  has  been  read, 
applauded,  and  fo  often  recurred  to,  by  many  of  the 
moft  learned  men  in  Europe.  It  is  to  little  purpofe 
to  fay,  *  he  wrote  it  at  the  age  of  X4  i'  or  to  bring 

nini 


40  REPLY  to  THE 

queftiohs  were  given  out  for  difcufHon  ;  as  ij 
plam  from  B.lhop  Burnet.'  If  this  is  plain  from 
B.fhop  W,he  .sthe  «  blind  gu.de'  to  the 
Doftor  and  not  the  Irenkum  to  me.  For,  it  is 
obferjablc,   thcfe  queftions  with  the   refolutions 

MS.  S.  \i  Sulitvgjlut:  as  his  own  words  arc.f 
And  It  IS  undeniably  evident,  from  what  is  faid 
ot  thefc  manufcripts,  and  quoted  out  of  them,  by 
Dr.  Mitn^fim,  that  this  '  feleft  affcmbly'  was 
called  by  K>ng  Edward  the  Sixth,  and  not  by 
Henry  the  Eighth,  %  Nay,  B.fhop  Burnet  him- 
felf  was  of  the  fame  mind.  For,  fays  he,  S  '  I 
find  another  inftance  like  this,  in  the  reforma- 
tion that  was  further  carried  on  in  the  suc- 
ceeding REIGN  of  Edward  the  sixth  of 
niany  B.lliops  and  Divmes  giving  in  their  opi- 
nions undertheirhands.uponfameheads  thenex- 
smined  and  changed.  InCa  anmer's  papers  feme 
lingular  opi.iions  of  his  about  the  nature  of  cc 
clcfiaftical  offices  will  be  found'.-  Dr.  Chandler 
has  mferted  (in  p.  27)  from  Bifhop-  BurrTS^ 
other  words  in  the  above  paffage  I  have,  for  thil 

reafon, 

him  in  faying, « there  were  many  things  in  it,  which 
.f  he  was  to  wnt,,  again,  he  would  Jt  fay  '     It^-, 
upon  the -fsows  truth  oi  x.\,<,  faas  he  has  related  ""j 
the  fohd  reafon  that  fupports  the  W„l/' he  '  , 
tains,  that  we  depend  5  and   not  uponTe  n  ' 

authority  of  the  man.     Until  the  bo'ok        a"Cered' 
which  has  never  yet  been  done,  and  1  wi!  venZ  to 
%  never  will,  .t  will  remain  with  us  in  fdl  feV 
For/.^,a,e  ftubborn,  and  reajor^  is  the  fame   wl?!* 
ther  men   are  old  or  young,  or  however  ^.l     5 
ments  with  their  intereft  may  alt«.       """' J'^'S- 

+Hift.  reformation.vol.  iftn   te.t  VM^a.     c  j  . 

t  Vid.  Jrenicum   d  ,8ft!fi  lei.Collea.  of  records,' 
t  Hift   „f"^"'"'.  P-  380  and  onwardi, 
3  "Ut.  reformation,  p.  189. 


'APPEAL  DEFENDED'         41 

i-eafon,  omitted  quoting,  in  order  to  weaken  the 
evidence  of  Cr^«;»^r  :  and  yet  taking  ncT  notice 
of  the  former  part,  he  places  thefe  queftions  gi- 
ven out  to  be  difcuffed  about  ten  years  back- 
ward from  their  true  date,  and  in  dircd  concra- 
didtion  to  Bifhop  Burnet  \  affirming,  at  the 
fame  time,  that  it  was  '  plain  from  him/  that  he 
had  fixed  the  time  right.  He  is  able  to  fay, 
whether  this  was  done  with  defign,  or  through 
inattention.  I  would  candidly  artribute  it  to  the 
latter,  however  flrange  it  may  appear,  that  he 
lliould  quote  one  part  of  a  pallage,  and  fuffer 
another,  he  lays  fo  great  ftrcfs  upon,  to  efcapc 
his  obfervation. 

He  acknowledges  (p.  26)  that  Cranmer's  an- 
fwer  to  the  tenth  queftion  m  thefe  words,  '  Bi- 
fhops  and  Priefts  were  at  one  time,  and  were 
not  two  things,  bat  one  office  in  the  beginning 
of  CHRIST'S  religion,'  are  to  be  found,  as  I 
had  quoted  them,  in  the  manufcript  publilhed 
by  Burnet  ;  but  then  adds,  '  the  reader  will  not 
forget  the  time  of  his  giving  this  anfwer,  whick 
was  about  ten  years  before  our  preient  offices  for 
ordination  were  compofed.'  To  which  I  would 
only  fay,  this  memento  to  the  reader  is  the  etfcct: 
of  his  '  blindly'  following  a  true  guide.  For 
it  appears  from  what  has  been  laid  above,  thac 
the  very  author  whofe  authority  he  relies  oa 
fpeaks  of  thii  artfwer  of  Cranmer*^  as  given,  not 
'  about  ten  years  before  the  ordinal  was  compil- 
ed,* bue  in  the  reign  of  Edward  the  Sixth  ;  and 
as  this  book  of  ordination  was  publifhed  in  the 
third  year  of  this  King's  reign,  it  could  be  but 
a  very  little  time  before  its  cornpofition  ;  which 
is  the  more  worthy  of  fpecial  notice,  becaufe,  as 
the  Do6tor  himfelf  obfcrves  *  Cranmer  was  the 
principal  perfon  concerned  in  thac  work.* 

F  He 


j^  REPLY    TO   THE 

He   goes   on  (p.  ibid)   '  Hoyvevcr  ftrange 
Cranmer\  opinion  may  appear  to  have  bcei,thcrc 
is  ftrong   proof  that  he  altered  it   immediately. 
This  *  ftrong  proof  follows  in  thcfc  words,  'For 
in  the   fame  copy  of  qucftions   and   refolutlons. 
Dr.    Leighton\  anfwcr   to  the  eleventh  queftion 
is ;  'I  fuppofe  that  a  Biihop  hath   authority  of 
GOD,  as  his  minifter,  by  fcriptvire  to  make  a 
Prieft  ;    but  he    ought  not   to  admit  any   man 
to  be  a  Prieft,  and  confccrate  him,  or  to  appomt 
him  to  any  miniftry  in  the  church  wiihout  the 
Prince's  licence    and  confent.      And  ^^^^   ^"T 
other  man   hath  authority  to   make  a  Prieft  by 
fcripture,  I  have  not  read,  nor  any  example  there- 
of     To    the  twelfth  queftion  Leighton  anfwer?,  I 
*  i  fuppofe  that  there  is  a  confecration  required,as 
by  impofition  of  hands  •,  for  fo  we  be  taught  in 
the  cnfamples  of  the  Apoftlcs.'      Now  BureK 
in  his  Vindicia^,  fays,  'That,  havmg  had  an  op- 
portunity of  examining  the  ongmal  manulcript, 
he  found  that  Cranmer  gave  his  confent  to  thtje 
two   opinions  (?/ Leighton,    fubicribing  to   each 
^h  :  Cantuaritnfis.'     It  is  obfervable,  the  ^  ftrong 
proof  that  Cranmer  changed  his  opinion  is  rcfted  \ 
upon  the  evidence  of  DurdU  which  is  really  no 
evidence  at  all,  if  Mr.  Boyfc   maybe   bchcvcd, 
who  fpeaks  of  him  *  as  '  an  author  too  notorious 
for    his    many  falOiopds   and    miftakes   in    this 
kind  to  be  depended  on/    And  the  Dodor  him-^ 
felf  has  unwarily  given  us  ftrong  realon  to  pre- 
fume,  that  Boyfe\  account  oi Dur ell  is  a  juft  one. 
For,   fays  he  (p.  27)  '  Why  Sttllingfleet  Ictc  out 
this  paflage   is  plain  -,  it  interfered  with   the  de- 
fign  of  his  Iremcum  :  but  why  BurnH  omitted  it 
is  doubtful/      There  can  be  no  deulic  in  the 

cafe. 

*  Account  of  the  ancient  Epifcopacy,  p.  ai* 


^APPEAL  DEFENDED.*        -4$ 

cafe.  If  this  paflage  was  not  in  the  original 
manufcript  the  rcafon  of  his  not  inftrting  it  is 
at  once  evident.  If  it  was  there,  he  muft,  with-^ 
out  all  controverfy  be  cfteemed  a  dilhoneft  pub- 
lifher  of  original  manufcripts  j  which  would,  in 
this  cafe,  be  very  extraordinary,  as  it  would  have 
been  to  his  purpofe  to  have  given  us  thefc 
words,  and  he  could  have  no  imaginable  tempta- 
tion thus  unfairly  to  fupprefs  them.  But  ihould 
it  be  fuppofcd  true,  that  Cranmer  fubfcribed  his 
con  fen  t  to  the  opinion  of  Leigh  ton,  as  fignified 
in  the  above  quoted  anfwers  to  the  tenth  and 
twelfth  queftions,  it  would  not  argue  that  he 
had  changed  his  fentiments  as  to  this,  that  '  Bi- 
fhops  and  Priefts  were  not  two  things,  but  one 
©ffice  in  the  beginning  of  CHRIST'S  religion.* 
The  only  words  upon  which  fuch  a  change  of 
.©pinion  can  be  grounded  arc  thefe,  *  I  fuppofe 
that  a  Bifhop  hath  authority  of  GOD,  as  his 
minifter,  by  fcripturc  to  make  a  Prieft — and  that 
any  other  man  haih  authority  to  make  a  Priefl: 
by  fcriptuie  I  have  not  read. — But  for  aughc 
any  thing  that  is  here  faid,  Bifhops  and  Priefts 
might,  in  Leigbton^s  opinion,  be  on«  and  the 
fame  order  of  officers  in  the  church  of  CHRIST  ; 
and  nothing  appears  in  any  of  his  other  anfwcrfi 
in  contradidion  hereto.  And  as  to  the  words, 
*  That  any  other  man  hath  authority  to  make  a 
Pcieft  I  have  not  read,*  it  is  evident  that  '  by 
any  other  man  is  meant,  any  other  man  not  veil- 
ed with  clerical  authority.  The  general  ilraia 
of  all  the  anfwers  to  this  eleventh  queftion  plain- 
ly leads  to  the  thought,  that  it  was  intended  for 
the  rctticinent  of  this  point,  whether  the  power 
of  making  Prisfls  was  appropriated  to  the 
Clergy,  fo  as  that  it  might  not  be  cxercifed 
by  mccr  laymen.     It  v/a§  by  no  mttn%  defigned 

m 


V4  REPLY  TG  THE 

to  decide  the  qucftion.  Whether  ordination 
was  pppropriated  to  Bifhops  in  oppofition  to,  or 
cxclufion  of,  Prefbyters  ?  This  is  put  beyond 
difpute  by  the  anl'wer  particularly  of  the  Arch- 
Bifhop  of  York  to  that  queition,  which  is  this, 
'  That  a  Biihop  may  make  a  Pried  may  be  de- 
duced from  fcripture — And  that  any  othrr 
THAN  Bishops  or  Priests  may  make  a  Prieft 
we  neither  find  in  fcripture,  or  out  of  fcrip- 
ture. 

The  plain  truth  is,  it  does  not  appear  from 
any  one  of  the  anfwers,  to  any  of  the  propofed 
queftions,  that  there  was  a  difference  in  the  fen- 
time'nts  of  thefe  Bifhops  and  Divines   as  to  the 

ONENESS,  or     SAMENESS,    of  the  ORDER     of  Bi- 

fhops  and  Prelfbyrers  ;  though  they  might  dif- 
fer in  their  opinion  about  the  degree  in  the 
fame  order.  The  Arch-Bilhop  of  York's  anfwer 
to  the  tenth  queftion/  Whether  Bilhops  or  Priefts 
were  firfl,'  will  convey  to  us  a  clear  and  juft 
idea  of  this  ;  as  we  find  in  it  fuch  words  as 
thefe,  '  the  name  of  a  Bfhop  is  not  a  name  of 
ORDER  but  a  name  of  office,  fignifying  an  over- 
feer.  And  although  the  inferior  Shepherds  have 
alfo  csre  to  overfcc  their  fiock,  yet  forasmuch  as 
the  Bi (hop's  charge  is  alfo  to  overfec  the  She- 
pherds, the  name  pf  overfeers  is  given  to  the 
Bifhops,  and  not  to  the  other  ;  and  as  he  is  in 
DEGREE  higher,  fo  in  their  confecration  we  find 
difference  even  from  the  primitive  church.'  I 
fhall  yet  add  ;  to  the  13th  queftion,  '  Whether 
(if  it  fortuned  a  chrif^ian  Prince  learned  to  con- 
quer certain  dominions  of  infidels,  having  none 
but  temporal  learned  men  with  him)  if  it  be  de- 
fended by  the  law,  that  he  and  they  fhould 
preach  and  reach  the  word  of  GOD  there,  or 
no  ?  and  alfo  make  and  conftitutc  Priefts,  or  no  ? 

I 


*  APPEAL  DEFENDED.^        ^5 

I  fay  to  this  13th  queftion,  Lsighton's  anftver  is, 
*  I  fuppofe  the  afErmative  thereof  to  be   true  ; 
quamvis  poteftas  clavium   rejidet  pr^ecipue  in  Ec- 
defia.^      And  to  the  fourteenth  queftion,  Whe- 
ther it  be  forefended  by  the  law  (if  it  fo  fortune 
that  all  the  Bifliops  and  Pricfts  of  a  region  vere 
dead,  and  that  the  word  of  GOD  fhould  remain 
there  unpreached,  and   the  facrament  of  baptifm 
and  others  unminiftred)  that  the  King  of  the  re-- 
gion  fhould  make  Bifhops  and  Priefts  to  fupply 
the   fame  or  no  ?'    His  anfwcr  is,  *  I  fuppofe 
the  affirmative  to  be  true,incafc  that  there  cannot 
Bifhops  or  Priests  be   had  forth  of  other  coun- 
tries conveniently.'     Thefe  anfwers  are  cfTential- 
ly  different   from  what  the  Docftor  would  have 
given  to  thefe  queftions,  and  abfolutely  incom- 
patible with  the  divine  right  of  Epifcopacy  in 
his  fenfe  of  it.     And  yet,   thefe  feleded  Bifhops 
and  Divines  were  perfedlly  unanimous  in  faying, 
that,  in  the  cafe  propofed,  *  learned  laymen  not 
only   may,    but    ought  to    preach    and    teach 
GOD's   word;*  and  the  greater    part  of  theca 
declare  it  to  be  their  opinion,  thaf  the  '  Prince, 
(in  this  fame  cafe)  and  his  temporal   learn- 
ed MEN   may  make  and  inftitute   minifters,  or 
Priefts.'  ^  How  dlfTonant  are  thefe  fentiments  of 
our  reformers  from  thofe  exprelTed  in  the  '  ap- 
peal,'  (p.  4)  in  thefe  words,   *  If  the  fuccefTion 
[that  is,  in  the  line  of  Bifhops,  who  only  have 
autI>ority   to  ordain]  be  once  broken,  and   the 
power  of  ordination   [that  is,  by  Bifhops  only] 
once  loft,  not  all  the  men  on  earth — not  all  the 
Angels  in  Heaven,  without  an  immediate  com- 
mifTion  from  CHRIST,  can  reftorc  it ! 

The 


»  Burnetts   Hift.   reform,   p.  231,  232,  233,  234; 
Coll€<^.  of  Records. 


46  REPLY  TO  THE 

The  Doctor  has  not  yet  done  with  Cranmer. 
(Says  he,  p.  3©)  "■  Afttr  the  time  of  his  fubfcrib- 
ing  to  Dr.  Leighton's  opinions  concerning  Epif- 
copacy,  I  find  him  in  no  fludtuacion  of  princi- 
ples •,  but  m^ny  proofs  appear  of  his  iettled 
and  fteady  belief  that  Bifhops  are  fuperior  to 
Prefbyiers  by  apoftolical  inltitution.'  Enough, 
1  truft,  has  been  alrcauy  fa:d  to  fhow,  that  no 
valid  proof  has  been  given,  that  Cranmer  fub- 
fcribed  Leighton^s  anfwers  ;  or,  if  he  did,  that 
this  was  fufficient  to  faften  on  him  a  change 
of  fentiments  relativre  tp  Epifcopacy  :  nor  am  I 
yet  perfuaded  to  think,  that  there  are  any  proofs 
from  which  it  Wiil  appear,  that  it  was  ever  his 
*  fettled  belief  that  Biiliops  are -fuperior  to  Pref- 
byiers  by  apoftorical  infiitution.'  It  is  a  piry 
the  Dodor  has  not  (Quoted  the  pafiagcs  in  Cran- 
m^r^s  writings,  upon  which  he  finds  that  there 
was  *  no  Hiiduanon  in  his  principles  on  this 
head.'  He  fpeaks  of  a  ^CaUcbi/m  he  compiled, 
in  which,  if  we  may  believe  Bifhop  Burnet^  he 
fully  owns  the  divine  indicution  of  Bifhops  and 
Priefts.'  Could  a  fight  of  this  catcchifm  be  ob- 
tained, it  is  probable  it  might  be  in  our  power  to 
refute  whac  is  here  laid  from  Bifhop  Burnet  : 
Hov/ever  this  may  be,  thus  much  is  certain,  if 
we  would  form  a  right  judgment  in  this  matter, 
it  mud  be  from  what  is  laid  in  the  catcchifm  it- 
felf,  and  not  by  implicit  faith  in  the  opinion  of 
another,  who,  perhaps,  never  faw  it  himfclf. 
The  Dodlor  likewife  tells  us  of  a  '  fermon  in 
this  catcchifm,  or  large  indrudion  of  young  pcr- 
fons,  concerning  the  authority  of  the  keys^  upon 
Rom,  X.  13,  i4,  15,  in  which  fermon  his  no- 
tions of  Epifcopacy  and  church-govcrnmcnt  arc 
fo  high,  that  even  the  high-flying  Dr.  Hicks  re- 
printed it  at  large  in  his  preface  to  the  divins 


'APPEAL  DEFENDED.'        47 

r's^bt  of  EpifcDpacy  ajferied:  This  fermon  is,  I 
conclude,  the  very  one  repaired  to  by  Mr.  "Dru- 
ry  in  order  to  prove  that  Cranmtr  retrafled  his 
opinion  about  Bifhops  and  Priefts-,  to  whom  Mr. 
Boyfe  replies  ^  '  the  pafiage  he  has  cited  in  this 
fermon  no  way  affcrts  Priefts  and  Bifhops  to  be 
at  the  beginning  two  dillina:  orders/  If  the 
Dodor  will  bring  to  view  this,  or  any  other  paf- 
facre,  in  this  fermon,  or  in  any  other  writmg  of 
Cranmer,  and  from  thence  point  out  to  us  the 
affirmed  change  in  his  fcntimcnts,  we  will  rea- 
dily fubmit  •,  but  until  then  we  Ihall  beg  leave 
to  think,  that  he  ever  adhered  to  the  opinion, 
*■  that  Priefts  and  Biftiops  were  at  one  time, 
and  not  two  things,  but  one  office  m  the  be- 
ginning of  CHRlST's  religion. 

I  HAD  faid,  Cani:  to  app.  p.  it)  from   Mr.  /. 
Owsn,  and  upon  his  authority,  ''  that  the  noti- 
on of  the   right  of  Biftiops  to  govern  and  ordain, 
as  being  officers  in  the  church  lupcrior  to  Prciby- 
ters,bydivine'appointmcnt,  was firft  promoted  in 
the  church  of  England    by  Arch-Bifhop   Laud.' 
The  Dodor  takes  occafton    from  hence  to   play 
with  the  word  promoted  to  make  his   readers 
merry.     He  is  utterly  at  a  lofg  what  to  make  of 
it.     Ic  is  a  '  myfterious'  word  -,  it  contains  in  \l 
*  fomc  fecret  meaning,  which  he  does  not  com- 
prehend •,'  it  '  muft  b|f  unfolded,'  or,   notwith- 
ftanding  what  may  be  the  meaning  of  this  un- 
fcarchable   word,  '   he  muft  take  the  liberty  to 
believe,  that  the   national  eftabliOi men t   of  this 
dodrinc  again  and  again,  and   making  it  a  fun- 
damental principle  of  our  reformation,   was  do- 
ing fomething  to  promote  it.'     1    affure   the 
Dodor  i  would  not  have  ufed  this  word,  which 

appeared 

?  Ancient  Epifcopacy,  p.  8, 


4$  •  REPLY   TO    THE 

appeared  to  me  a  harmlefs,  well  meaning  one, 
could  1  have  forefeen  the  ftrangc  influence  ic 
would  have  on  him.  It  has  certainly  very  much 
obftrufled  his  difcerning  faculty  :  otherwife,  ic 
would  not  have  appeared  to  him,  that  the  fupe- 
riority  of  Bifhops  to  Prefbyters,  by  divine  ap- 
pointment, was  a  dodlrine  that  had  been  '  again 
and  again  nationally  cllabliflicd  •,'  much  kfs 
that  this  was  a  'fundamental  principle  of  the  re- 
fcrmation.'  Arch-Blfliop  Laud^  without  all 
doubt,  was  the  first,  1  will  not  fay  that  pro- 
moted this  do6lrinc,  left  a  word  of  fo  profound 
a  meaning  fhould  puzzle  the  Do6lor  ;  but  he 
was  the  first,  in  oppofition  to  any  '  national 
eftabUflim.ent,'  or  its  being  at  all  a  principle, 
much  lefs  '  a  fundamental  one  of  the  reforma- 
tion,' that  openly  aiTertcd,  and  pleaded  for  this 
doftriae.  Perhaps  the  Dodlor,  now  I  have  fub- 
ftitutcd  a  plain  word,  inflead  of  a  '  myftcrious' 
one,  will  be  convinced  of  this  by  what  has  been 
offered  to  his  view  :  it  he  is  not,  I  am  fatisfied, 
the  impartial  Public  will. 

He  goes  on,  'if  the  meaning'  of  this  incom- 
prehenfible  word  promoted  '  be,  that  none  before 
Arch-Bifliop  Laud  contended  for  the  fuperiori- 
ty  of  Bifhops  over  Prefbyters,  by  divine  appoint- 
ment, in  their  writings,  1  muft  dill  deny  it  ;  as 
I  am  able  to  pfoduce  abundant  evidence  to  th« 
contrary.*  The  readef  will  remember,  I  brought 
in  Arch-Bifhop  Laud,  sls  the  fir  ft  promoter  of 
Epifcopacy  upon  the  plan  of  a  divine  right,  from 
Mr.  y,  Owen,  depending  on  his  authority.  Of 
-what  great  importance  is  it,  whether  he  was  the 
firft,  fecond,  third,  or  foprth  that  contended  for 
this  dodrine  ?  And  yet,  the  Doflor  has  taken 
up  eight  or  nine  pages  in  endeavouring  to  prove, 
that  a  fsw  othcri  wrcc  before  Laud  ia  pleading 

for 


^APPEAL  DEFENDED/         49 

the  divine  right  of  Epifcopacy.     But  the  unhap-- 
pinefs  is,  he  is  grofsly   midaken   in  the  idea  he 
has  given  of  the  fcntiments  of  ihs  men    he  has 
reamed.     They   were,   it   is   true,  Epifcopaiians 
upon  the  foot  of  divine  right,  in  a  quahfied,  mi- 
tigated   fenfe  V    but  not  in   the  fenfe  in  whicfi 
Laua  znd  the  Dodor.  pkad  for'this  right.      It 
was  not  the  opinion  of  any  one  of  thtn)p  that 
the  right  of  Bifhops^  by  diviiie  appointment,  to 
,  govern  and  ordain,   was  fuchj   as   that  ic  could 
nor,  as  the  cafe  might  require,  be  altered  :   and 
they  were  clear  and   full  m  fignlfying  their  fen- 
timents  to  this  purpoie       I  have  by  me  a  book, 
intitled,  '  A  rtprelcntation  of  the  government  of 
the  church  of  Erg-ana,  according  to  the  iudg- 
inenc  of  her   Bifhops  unto  the  end  of  Qj^itea 
Elijabttb^s  reign,*  by   htefben  Loh^  as  I  h.:\d,  his 
name  infcrted,  in  the  title  page,  by  Dr,  Increajd 
Mathtr  y    in  vvhicl>  are  CAUads,  irorn  all  the 
writers  Dr,  Chandler  has  mentioned^  and  many 
more,    making  it  evident,   beyond  denial,   that 
their  notion  of  EpilcopacyjUpon  the  jure  divino-^ 
Jhip  plan,  was  fo  qualified  as  to  be  con^ftent  with 
an  intire  change  in  the  eAtrcife  of  governing  and 
ordaining  power  :  but  it  muft  fufficc,  that  i  may 
not  take  up  too  much  room,  to  bring  to  view  a 
few  of  thefc  cxtrads,  fram  only  two  or  three  of 
lYit  moft  illdltriciiis  of  thefe  writers/,  and  l  have 
feitdled   thefe   principally  for  i.iilrudion   to  the 
Do6tor,   and  to  kc  him  and  the  Public  know, 
that  he  is  highei.  in  his  church-principles  than 
the  HIGHEST  ic  was  in  his  power  to  name,  v/hen 
HIGH   notions  of  Epifeopacy  firfi  began  to  be 
broached. 

He  celebrates  Arch-Bidiop  Wbhgift  as  aa 
eminent  writer  in  favour  of  the  divine  right  of 
Epifeopacy  j    but,  whetner  the  Arch;Bi(liop's 


50  REPLY  TO  THE 

notion  of  a  dtvine  right  does  at  all  agree  with  Ms, 
may  eafily  be  determined  by  the  following   paf- 
fages  in   his  book   againft  CartwrMt,      Havino 
cJiltmguinied  baween   fuch  thing,  2.,  fo' nea(]a?y 
tmt  Withcut  tioem  we  cannot  be  laved,   and  fuch 
as  are  fo  necejjary  that  without  them  zve  cannot  so 
WELL  and  CONVENIENTLY  be Javcd,  he  adds   'I 
confels,  tnat   in  a  church   colltaed   together  in 
one  place,   and  at  liberty,  government  is    necef- 
lary  wuh  the  (cccnd  kind  of  r.ectfTity  ;  but  that 
any   kind  of  government  is   la  necelTary,    that 
wuhout   It  the   church   cannot  be  faved,   or  that 
It  may  not  be  altered  mo  Jome  other  kind,  thouchc 
to  be  more  expedient,  I  utttrly  deny  ;  and  the  r'ea- 
fons  chat  move  me  fo  to  do  be  thefe.     The  firft 
IS,  becaufe  I  find  no  one  certain  and  perfect  k'nd 
or  government,  prefcribed,    or  commanded,    in 
the  -cnptures  to  ihechurch  of  CHRIST;  whxh^ 
nof.  doubt  fhoul  i  have  been  done,  if  it  had  been 
a^^cnattcr  nceei?a?y  to  the  falvation  of  the  church, 
'i  here  is  no  certain  kind  of  government,  or  dif- 
ciphne,  prcfcribtd  to  the  church  ;    but  that  the 
fame  may  be  airtred  as  the  profit  of  the  churches 
rcqiKres  —I    do  deny,  that  the  fcriptures  do  fer 
dov.n   any  one  certsin    kind  of  government   in 
fne  church  o   be  p'.rprSual,' for  all  times,  per- 
Jons,  and  places,  without  a!t'^ration.~-It    is  well 
known,   that  the   manner  and  form  of  govern-- 
ir.ent  ufed  in  the  apoiiles  time,  arid  exprefled  in 
me  icripcures,  neither  is  new,  nor  can,  nor  oughc 
to  heobcrve:J,   either  touchm^^  the   perfons  or 
thefunaions-^We  {c^  tnanifcftly  that,  in   fun- 
cry  pomts,  the  government  of  the  church,  ufed 
Jn  the    Apoftles  time,  is,,  ^nd'  hath  been   of  ne^ 
cefiity  altered,  and   that  it   neither  may,-  nor  can 
be     revoked  ;   whereby  it  is  plain,    that  any  one 
^ind  of  external  government,  perpetually  to  be 

obfcrvedj 


•APPEAL  DEFENDED.'        ^f 

is  no  where  in  the  fcripture  prefcribec!  to  the 
church,  but  the  charge  thereof  is  letc  to  the  Ma- 
gistrate, fo  that  nothing  be  done  contrary  to 
the  word  of  GOD.  This  is  the  opinion  of  the 
beft  writers  ;  isErTHirR  do  I  know  any  lear- 
ned MAN  OF  A  CONTRARY  JUDGMENT. Ei- 
ther WC  Riuft  admin  another  form  now  of  go- 
verning the  church,  than  was  in  the  Apoftlt3 
time,  or  clfe  we  mul>  icclude  the  chriftian  Ma- 
giftrate  from  all  auihoriry  in  eccleuaftical  mat- 
ters.—I  am  pcrfuaded,  that  the  external  govern- 
ment of  the  church  under  a  chriilian  Magillrate 
muft  be  according  to  the  kind  and  form  of  go-, 
vernmentufed  in  the  commoa-wcakh  ^  elfe  how 
can  you  make  the  Prince  fuprcam  Governor  of 

all  Hares  and  caufes  eccicfiaftical  ?' * 

Arch-Bishox^  i?^;7^r^//is  hkewife  m.entioned 
by  the  Dodor  as  having  fignaiifed  himielf  in 
defending  the  caufe  of  Epifcopacy  -,  but  it 
could  noc  be  Epifcopacy  in  the  the  fcnfe  plea- 
ded for  in  the  '  appeal,'  and  its  ^  defcjice/ 
lor  ic  IS  evident,  from  the  cafe  of  the  three 
Prefbyters  that  were  confecrated  Bifhops  for 
Scotland,  at  London,  that  Bancroft  allowed  or- 
dmation  by  Prefbyters  to  be  valid.  The  Doc- 
tor indeed  .s  ple.ifcd  to  fay,  (p  46}  *  They  were 
not  confecrated  on  the  principle  that  ordinarion 
by  Prefbytrrs  was  valid,  but  upon  the  belief 
that  the  epifcopal  charadtr,  as  it  included  thofe 
of  a  Prefbyter  ind  Deacon,  might  be  conveyed 
by  a  fmglcconfecracion'— .Bur,as  this  is  reded  on 
no  other  proof  than  the  Doftor's  own  amrmati- 
on,  it  ought   to  be  confidcrcd  as  nothing,    when 

compared 

^  The  plates   referred  to    in   LoFs  reprefentat.    are, 
'Defence  traa,  C    3,  Divif.  ^g,   35,  4a,  41.     And 


!0,  ^EPLY    TO    THE 

compared  with  the  evidence  we  have,  that  Bancroft 
.  dire£l!yexprcricd  his  acknowledgment  of  the  val)- 
-dity  of  ordination  by  Prefbyters.  Arch-Bi{liop5p^/r}^ 
.v:ocd  declares  this  in  fo  many  words.  Says  he,  ^ 
'*A  quedion  was  mov^d  by  Dr.  /indrcws*  Bilbop 
*of  Eiy,  touchirig.the  cciifccration  of  the  Scottifh 
^Bifliops  ;  who,  as  he  (aid,  -muft  be/r/?  ordained 

Prefiyters^  sg  having  received  no  crdination  from 
,  a  Bijtop.     The  ArcS-Bifhop  of  Canterbury,  Dr. 

-  Bancroft ^    who  was  by,  maintained,  7/^^/  /^<rr^o/ 
there   was    no    neceffity^  j^^''^g%    '^here  of  Bybops 

.  CGuld  not  be  bady  the  ordiruition  given  by  Pre/by ters 

,  muli   he  efteenied  Idwful ;    otherwife^  that  it  might 

,h€  doubted  if  there  were  any  taivful  'vocation  in  mojl 

of  the  reformed  churches,  -This  applanded  to  by 

^the  other  Bi/hops^  Ely  acquicfced,  and  at  the  day, 

and   in  the  phce  appoinitd,  the   three  Scottilh 

^  Biihops  v^ere  cohiecra^ed.' 

As  for  /iZ^tf^ifrj'i!:  isV  plainly  evident,  from  a 
.  ccnfiderable  number  of  large  ex cra6ls  from  his 
.  ^  imrQOrtal  wcrk,  the  ecclefjaftical  polity,'  to  be 
met  with  inX^^*s,.reprefentation,  that,  in  his  opi- 
nion,  the  fcriptures  do  nor   make  the  Epijco- 
pal^  or  any  other  particular  kind  of  government, 

-  UNALTERA-BLE  ',  that  the  powet  of  Conferring 
orders  is  not,  by  any  divine  law,  so  appropri- 
ated TO  -Bishops,  that  in  no  cafe,  ordmation 
by  Fresb^ters  can  be  valid  ;  and  that  the 
church  vifible  is  the  trus  original  JubjeB  of  all 
power,  and  c^n  aker  the*  government  of  the 
church.  Among,  the  extracts  to  this  purpole, 
the  two  or  three  following  ones  only  .muft  fuf- 
,fice  for  the  prefent.   '  ■ 

Tp^e  firftis  taken  from- his  feventh  book,  in 

thefe 

'^  Hi{^.  of  Scotland,  Lib.   7,  p»  514^  as  quoted  by 
Zo^  ia  his  rcj^fslenc.  p.  3^. 


« APPEAL  T5EFE-RDED'       '51 

thefc  words,  *  Bifliops,  albeit  they  may  avouch 
v/ich  conformity   of  truth,  that   their   authority 

-hath  thus  'iefcendcd  even  frooi  the  very  Apoftles 
themfelves  ;  yet  the  absolute  and  iverlast- 
ING  CONTINUANCE  of  It  they  cannot  fay  any 
<:oiTimanJment  of  the  LORD  enjoins  -,  and 
therefore   mufl  acknowledge,   that  the  church 

'hath  power  by  univerfal  confent,  upon  urgent 
cauie,  to  TAKE  IT  AWAY,  if  thcreuoto  flie  be 
conftrained   through  the  proud,  tyrannical, 

AND     unreasonable     DEALINGS  OF     HER.     Bl^ 

SHOPS.       Thtrrerore,    left    Biihops    fliould   for- 
get  themfelves,   as  if  none  on  earth    had   au- 
thority to  touch   their  ftates,  let  them  conti- 
.nually  bear  in  mind,  that  it  is  rather  \.\\q  force  of 
-cujlem,    whereby    the  church,    having  fo    long 
found  it  good  to   continue  under  the   regiment 
•of  her  virtuous  Bifhops,  doth  (liU  uphold,  main- 
tain and   honor  them  in   that  rcfpedl,   than  that 
any  Coch  true  and  heavenly  law  can  be  lliewed,  by 
the  evidence  whereof  it  may  of  a  truth  appear, 
that  the  LORD  hmfelfhath  appointed  Prefbyters 
for  ever  to-  be  under  the  tegiment  of  Bifbops  in  what 
fort  fo  ever  they  behave  themfelves,^ 

In  the  (ame  book,  he  fays,  'There  may  be  fome- 
times  veryjull  andfufficient  reafons  toaii  ordinati- 
on made  without  a  Bifhop.  The  whole  church 
vifiblc,belng  the  true  original  fubjeft  of  all  pow- 
er. It  hath  not  ordinarily  allowed  any  other  than 
Bilhops  alone  to  ordain  :  Howbeit,  as  the  ordi- 
nary courfe  is  ordinarily  in  all  things  to  be  ob- 
ferved,  fo  it  may,  in  fonr.e  cafes  not  unnccefTary," 
that  we  decline  from  the  ordinary  ways.' 

In  the  fame  book  fliil,  v/e  meet  with  thij 
paflTagc  '  We  are  not  fimply  without  excep- 
tion to  urge  a  lineal  descent  of  power' 
FROM   THE  Apostles    by   continued    suc- 

CESSIOI* 


'54  R  E  P  L  Y  T  O  T  H  E 

CESSION  OF  Bishops  in  every  effectual 
ORDINATION.'  ^  I  (hall  fuHjoin  here,  that 
Stillinzfleet  fays,  *  They  who  pleafc  but  to  con- 
fuk  the  third  book  of  Hooker'^  ecclefuftical  hif- 
tory,  may  fee  the  mutabihty  of  the  form  of" 
church  government  largely  alTerted,  and,  fully 
proved.'  Leb  makes  the  fame  obfervation  ;  and 
with  exad  truth,  as  I  can  myfelf  teilify, 
having  had  opportunity,  fincc  the  penning 
"what  has  been  above  offered,  to  look  into  Hoo' 
^^^that  I  might  be  fatisfied  what  his  fentiments 
were  upon  this  head. 

Until  the  Dodor  fees  fit  to  profefs  his  rea- 
dinefs  to  fall  in  wi^h  thefe  fgntiments,  1  Ihall 
think  myfelf  at  Hberty  to  believe,  that  Lqud  was 
the  FIRST  vyho  promoted  Epifcopacy,  conforma- 
bly to  the  idea,  he,  and  the  very  fmall  party  he 
is  joined  with,  entertains  concerning  it. 

As,  upon  the  point  of  Re-ordination^  he  *  dees 
rot  undertake  tocontradid:  me,  (to  ufe  his  own 
words,  p.  42)  but  to  place  it  in  a  proper  point 
pfligh%*I  fhall  only  daj^rc  the  reader  to  take 
notice  of- one  thing  he  has  omitted,  which  is  of 
far  greater  importance  than  any  thing  he  has 
offered.  It  is  the  adl  of  the  thirteenth  of  £  i- 
/abetb^v^hjch  runs  thus,f  '  That  every  per  Ton  un- 
der the  degree  of  a  Bifliop,  which  doth  or  fhaU 
pretend  to  be  a  Pried  or  minlfter  of  GOD's 
holy  word  and  facramcnts,  by  reafon  of  any  o- 
THER  FORM  of  inftituiion,  confecrarion,  or  or- 
dering, than  the  form  now  used  in  the  reign 
of  our  mod  gracious  iovereign  Lady — (liail— ^ 
declare  his  affent,  and  fubfcribe  to  ail  the  arti- 
cles 

*  Vi<3.  Loh*s  reprefent.  p.  41,  43,  45. 
f  Lob's  reprefent.  of  the  govcinmcnt  of  the  church  of 
Englanflj  p.  59,  60, 


•APPEAL  DEFENDED.'         55 

des  of  religion.'-[Thefe  concern  only  the  pro- 
fcffion  ot  Che  true  chriftian  faith,  and    the  doc- 
trine ot  the  facraments,  compriftd  in  a  book  en- 
med,   ArtKles    y.    ./^.  Thir.y-nine  articles] 
Thepenalty  .s    '  That  every  fuch  perfon  which 
null  not  fubfcribelhall  beCipfo  fafto)  deprived, 
and  ail  his  eccl^-fiaftical  promotion  fhall   be  void 
as   if  he  had  been   naturally"  dead.'     Jn  confc-* 
quence  of  this  ,&,  TVhiningham  and  1  ravers 
tho    not  ordained  according  to  the  form  the^ 
IN  USE,  might  notwithftandingbc  lawful    hm- 
ni  lers  of  the  church  of  England.     I    mention 
this  to   let  the  Daaor  know,1hat  he  waTmifta- 
ken  in  his   declaration,  (p.  45;    '  that  through- 
out   the    v/no,e  reign  (that   is  of  Queen   Elifa- 
hei^)  we  are  confidering,_it   vas^  an  eftablilhed 
law— that  no  man  fnould  be  accounted  or  taken 
to   .e   a  lawful  Bilhop,    Pried,    or   Deacon,   in 
the   church   ot   England,    or   (uffered    to   exe- 
cute  any   of  the  fajd  funftions,  without  epis- 
copal   ordination.'     This  isfaid    in   dire^T: 
contrad.a.on  to  the  abovementioned  aft  of  th 
thirteentn  of  £/^.^.,^,  ,.hi,h  continued  in  foro 
X'WCbarles  the  iccond;  when,  by  another  aft  'eve- 
ry one,  nor    in  holy  orders  by  episcopal   or- 
PINATION,'   was   difabled    from    'holding   anv 
padonage    wnatever     as    if  he  had    been'natu^ 
r.lly  dead.'   IVbtUngham  and  Gravers  were  there 
forcLAWFt'L  miniiltrs  in  the  church  of  England 
tho    not    EPiscoPALLY    ordained   ;   and  "thei;^ 
holding  benefices  was  not  -by    permiffion   thro' 
the  neceffityof  thetimes,'butin    prrfeaaorec- 
ment  with  the  then  eftablilhed  lawof  thena^tion.  ' 

1    SHALL   not  think  it  improper   to  add  here 
more  efpecially  for  the  ufe  of  theDoflor,  and  £ 

IS  a  full  proof,  that  it  was  not  heropinion  that  ordi- 

nation 


e 
rce 


•5\5^  REPLY  TO 'THE 

nation  was,by  divine  appointment,.appropriated  to 
Bifhopsin  diftindlion  tfomPrcfbytcrs^fo  as  that  or- 
dination byPrelbytcrs  only  was  invalid,  ilad  this 
been  her  fentime'nr,  fiie  could ^ riot  in  confiftency 
herewith  have  given  ht^t  fiat  to  this  ad.  Now,  let 
it  be  particularly  renienjbcred,  iheDodor  has  told 
us,  f  p.  41)  he  Has  'proved,  that  the  do6lrines 
of  the  Bifhops  and  Clergy,  in  the  reign  of  Qpeen 
Biiifaheih^  m'jft  have  been  agreable  to  ihe  Queen, 
and  to  the  principal  perlons  about  her  court.' 
If To,  WhvtX'^ft^  Bancroft,  Bilfcn:,  a^jd  other  epif- 
copal  wricers  in  this  reign,  were  not  for  ordi-  . 
nat-cn  by  Billiops,  fo  as  ro  nullify  ordination 
by  Frtfhyters  •,  nor  couid  they  tiifov^n  ar:y  as 
LAWFUL  miniilers  of  the  church  of  England 
MEERLv  becaufe  they  had  b.;en  ordained  by 
Prefbyters  only.  The'  divine  right  of  Epikop'a- 
cy,  iii  the  Doftor's  ^cvSq^  could  not  therefor;^ 
be  th^  dodliiae  of  the  church  of  England  in  the 
reign  ofQaeen  hlijabeth  (as  1  have  before  prov- 
ed It  vi^as  not  in  the  reigns  either  of  Henry  the 
Eighth,  or  Edward  the  Sixch)  ;  and  to  fay  thac 
it  could,  would  be  to  fay,  thar  two  contradic- 
tory eltabliiliments  were  in  force  at  one  and  the 
lame  time. 

Th  £  Do6lor  now  proceeds  to  fhov(^,  that  there 
is  '  ii'jthoricy  in  the  church  of  England  purely 
tcclefiafticil  ;'— Bur,  as  in  reply  (p.  211)  to 
rny  third  objedion  to  the  plan  of  an  American 
Epifcopate,  he  only  fays  '  it  has  been  anfwtred 
already,  [he  mull  mean  in  this  part  of  his  de- 
fence, or  ic  is  no  where  endeavoured  to  be  an- 
fwered]  1  (liali  potlpone  what  might  have  been 
offered  here,  until  I  come  to  juftify  the  force  of 
this  objection.  Only,  1  (hall  think  it  proper 
to  inicrr,  in  this  place,  a  few  pertinent  words 
from   turn^  who  is  an  author  the  Do(5tor  will 

J>Qt 


^APPEAL  DEFENDED.'        ^f 

not  fufped  to  have  been  wanting  in  his  regard 
to  the  church  of  England.  ^  Says  he,  «  •  Ihs 
truth  iSjthat,  after  the  abolition  of  the  papal  pow- 
cr,therc  was  no  branch  cffovereignty  with  which 
the  Princes  of  this  realm,  for  above  a  century 
after  the  reformation,  Wvre  more  delighted 
than  that  of  being  the  fupream  head  of  the 
church  :  imagining  (as  it  fccmeth)  that  all 
the  power  which  the  Pope  claimed  and  exerci- 
fed  (fo  far  as  he  was  able)  was,  by  the  flatutes 
abrogating  the  papaH  authority,  annexed  to  the 
imperial  crown  of  this  rcahn. — The  Pope  arro- 
gated to  himfelf  a  juiifdidion  fuperior,  not  only 
to  his  own  canon  law,  but  to  the  municipal  laws 
of  kingdoms.  And  thefe  Princes  of  this  realm 
abovementioned  f(^m  to  have  conddered  them- 
felves  as  Pop£s  in  their  own  dominions.*-^ 
The  Dodlor,  after  he  had  wroie  (ifcy  eighc 
pages^  very  pertinently  introduces  his  reader, 
afking,  '  What  is  all  this  to  the  purpofc  of  an 
American  Epifcopate  ?'  And  then  as  pertinent- 
ly anfwers  the  quedion  by  faying,  *  I  know 
not.'^  Why  then  did  he  commit  fo  grofs  a  tref- 
pafs  upon  the  patience  of  the  Public  ?  It  is  true, 
he  faid  nothing,  in  his  appeal,  '  about  the  opi- 
nion of  the  reformers  upon  the  points  of'Epif- 
copacy,  and  the  King's  fupremacy. ;'  but  it  is  as 
true,  that  he  faid  that  which  contradided  their 
opinion,  and  made  it  neceflary  in  anfwering  his 
appeal,  to  fet  this  matter  in  a  juft  light.  He 
has  therefore  really,  though  undcfignedly,  fneer- 
cd  at  Kimfclf  \i)\is  Jkesch  of  argumtnts  *  was 
to  the  purpoje  of  an  American  Epilcopaie,'  it  w^s 
Eo  the  furpsje  to  make  anfwer  to  it  j  if  it  was  not 
PI  to 

J  EccleSaftical  laws  v®L  2*  under  the  w«rd  fuprcma* 
cy. 


58  REPLY  TO  THE 

to  this  purpofe,  as  is  certainly  the  truth,  he  Icnowg 
as  well  as  1,  that  he  only  is  the  objeft  of  ridi- 
cule for  giving  occafion  to  that  which  was  im- 
pertinent, as  not  being  to  the  purpofe  of  the 
main  point  to  be  difputed.       ^    v 

He  now  comes  to  defend  his  darling  dodlrine 
of  an  uninterrupted  fuccefTun  in  the  line  of  Bi- 
fhops.  And  here  he  has  funk  much  below  my 
expeclatioas  ;  not  having  offered  any  one  thing 
that  will  bear  being  examined,  though  in  a  cur- 
lory  way  only. 

I  HAS  allowed,  *  tliat  none  have  amWbrhy  in 
th-e   chriflian   church    but    thofe  who  derive  it 
from  CHRIST,  either  ;/W/^/^/y,  or   immediate- 
ly  'y    fuggeftmg,  that  this  was  '  the  opinion  of 
lue  Colonilh  of  whatever  denomination  :'  up- 
on which  the  Do.51.or,  taking  it  for  granted  that 
authority,  if  conveyed  mediately,  mult  be  con- 
veyed by  perfonal jucceJJicn^Xzboxxxs  hard  to  prove 
a  klf-cvident  truth,  napely,  'that  where  a  thing 
is  to   be  conveyed  froip  one  perfon  to  another, 
not  immediately,  but  by  a  fucccflive  communi- 
cation through  a  number  of  intermediate  hands, 
if  any  one  in   the  fucceffion  fails  of  making  the 
conveyance,  the  thing  evidently  (tops,  and  pafTt^s 
not   on   to  the  perfon   to  whom  it  is  intended*: 
Who  ever  difputed  this,  which  is  fo evident,  up- 
on the   bare  propofal,  that  it  cannot  be   made 
more  lo  by  any   method  of  reafoning  whatever  ? 
It  is  a  pity  the  Doctor  did  not  think  it  proper  to 
prove  the  only  ihin'^  tliat  here  needed  proof,  viz^ 
that    authority  can  be  conveyed   mediately  from 
CHRIST,  in  no  way  but  by  perfonal  facceflion. 
Until    he  is  able  to  prove  this,   it  is   to  no  pur* 
pole   to  fay,   ^  if  the  authority   firit  given   to  A 
is  to  pafs  on  fuccelTively^to  B,  to  C,  to  D,  and  to 
E  i  ihould  the  conveyance  flop,  or  be  interrupt- 
ed 


^^  A  P  P  E  A  L  D  E  F  E  N  DE  D.*         59 

ed  at  C,  Co  that  it  pafTes   not  on  to  D  ;  in  ibat 
cafe  D  does  not  receive  it,  and  theretore  cannot 
convey  it  to  E,  uoicfs  D  is  able  to  give  what  in 
has  not.'     This   pompous  {hew   of  demonftra- 
tion   may    delude   we^k   minds,   but  is  altoge- 
ther a  rope  offand,  iinlefs  it  be  firft  proved,  that 
the  auihority  is  fo  given,  that  it  can  in  no  medi- 
ate way  be  conveyed,  but  in  fucceffion  from  A 
to  B,  and  fo  on.     We  join  with  theDoclorin  fay- 
ing '  T-hat  no  number  of  men  on  earth,   nor  all 
the  Angels  in   Heaven,  can  give  authority  from 
CHRIST  not  given  to  them,  or  renew  this   au- 
thority if  iotl'     And  whst   then  ?  Is  it  not  ob- 
vious to  the  moft  vulgar  underftanding,  that  the 
g:and  pomt  in  difputc  is  here  begged,  and  fup- 
pofed  to  be  granted,  namely,   that   authority   is 
given  by  CHRIST  to  be  communicated  by  per- 
fonal  fucceiTion,  and  that  there  is  no  other  vis- 
diate  way  in  which  it  c^  be  communicated  ? 
The  Doclor  might  have  known,   as  he  pretends 
an  acquaintance  with  Hooker^  '  immortal  v/ork,' 
that  the  church,  at   lead  in   his   opinion,   is  the 
trus  original fuhje^i  of  all  power  flcm  CHRIST; 
and   that  fhe   may  take  it  *away  even  from  Bi- 
fiiops>  if  th:y  are  proud,  tyrannical,   and  unre- 
formable  in  their  dealings^'z^  GOD  knows  has  too 
often  been  the  cafe.     He  accordingly  declares, 
we  are   not  /imply,  and  wiihout  e^cepticn  to  urge 
a  lineal  dcjcent  of  power  from  tht  Apoltlcs  by  con^ 
tinned  fuccejjion  of  Bifhops  in  every  tffeflual  ordi^ 
nation,  "^     And  1  can  affure  him  ftiil  further,  ic^ 
is  the  opinion  of  the  non-cpiftopalian  Colonifis, 
that  the  pov/cr  of  perpetuating  the   miniftration 
of  the  word  and  gofpel  ordinances,  is  fo  lodged 

v/ith 

*    VId.    Quotation   rrom    Hooper^    in  the  forc^c'n^ 
53d.  p.^c.    _ 


oo 


REPLY  TO    THE 


with  chriftian  churches,  that,  whenever  the  cafe 
requires  ir,  they  can  begin  a  rucctfTion  de  no- 
'VD^  *  vyhich  fuccefnon  will  be  as  truly  vcUed 
wich  authority  from  CHRIST,  as  if  it  had  been 
uninterruptedly  handeci.down  from  the  Apoftles, 
The  Dodor,  inftead  of  attempting  to  difprovc 
thefe  tenets,  takes  it  for  granted,  that  autho- 
rity from  CHRIST  can  be  conveyed  in  no  mt- 
^  '  dials 

5  Monfitur  Claude  has   clearly  expreffed,  and  cencifely 
prov^ed,  our  fcntiments  upon  this  head-     Says   he,  in 
his  defence  of  the  reforrnatien,  part  4,  p.  94,  95->-~ 
<f   Wherein  the  fcriptuve  recommends  to  tt^e  fAithful, 
the  taking  diligent  heed  to  the  prefervation   arfd  c&n- 
lirm^ion  of  their  faith,  and    to  propogate  it  to  their 
children,  it  gives  them  by  that  very   thing  a  fuffici- 
cnt  right  to  make  ufe  of  all  proper  means  in  or^er 
to  that  end  ;  and  every  body  knows  the  miniitry  is 
©ne  of  thole  means,  and  ttrer^fore  the  obligation   the 
faithful    are    under    to   preferve    and    propagate   the 
faith,  includes  that  of  creating  to  thernfelves  Paf- 
tors  when  they  cannot  have  them   otherw.fe   :   in 
ihort,   when  the   fcripture  teaches   that  the   faithful 
have  a  right  to- chufe  their  Pallors,  it  teaches  there- 
.-  by  that   ihey  have  a  rigVit  to  inftal  them  into  their 
om^e  in   c  Ac  of  neceility    -,  for  that   call   confifting 
more  efT  ntially  in  eU^ion  than  in  injiallalion-  which 
is  but  a  formality,  tht  re  is  no  reafon   to  believe  that 
GOD    Vi^ouid    have    given    the   people    a  *tight  to 
chufe  their   Pafto^'Sj   and  to'  have  them  .inftalied  by 
cth::rs,  and  that  he  ha«  not  given  them  at  the  fame 
time  a  power  of  injialnn^  thsm  themfshssj  v/hcn  it  can- 
not be  done  ftther'A^ife,   fmce  naturally  that   which 
wc  have  a  right  to  do  by  another, we  have  a  right  to  do 
by    Gurfelves.'      Nay,    even  Dodwell   himfelf,  that 
high-fi)  ingEpifcopaiian  fecms  to  have  exprclTed  near- 
ly t^e  fame  ftntiments,    [whether  ♦•it  be,  or  be   not, 
cor.fui-nt  with  the  other  parts  of  his  fcheme]  in  his 
\  jcparation  of  church eu      Says    be,  as  he  i»  quoted  by 
Mr.  M,  if's.  enquiry  into  the  nature  of  fchifrn^ 

(?•  49) 


•APPEAL  DEFENDED.^^        €i] 

dlaie  way,  but  by  perfbnal  fuccefTion  in  his  no- 
tion of  it  ;  and  then  neediefsiy  blots  fevcral  pa- 
ges in  p  oviitg  wha|  no  man  in  hia  fenfcs  ever 
did,  or  could  deny; 

I 

(p  49,)-—*  Whenever  any  perfDn   is  invefted  into 
1  th;  ("uprv-am  power,    and  the  fociety  over  which   he 
is   placed  is  independant  on  other  fociedes,    fuch  a 
perfoa    can  never  be  placed    in  hs  power    if  not  by 
them  wno   maft  after  be  his  fubj-as,  unlefs    by  his 
predecefFj-,  viriicti  iao  fociety  can  depeni  upon  for  a 
conjiant   rule  sf  fuccejUt^n.-^^i    a^n    apt    to  think,    t.    \ 
muft   have  be^n  the  way   of  making  BiJJjops  at  firft, 
howabfjlute  fjever  f  conceive  theca  to  be  when  they 
are  once  miJc.—  Phis  f:eni^  bjft  to  a^ee  with  th^ 
abfolutenefi  of  particular  churches ^  before   they  had  by 
compad  united  thennf?Jves  under  metropoiitans  .and 
exarchs,  intp  provincial  and  diocefan  churches  ;  and 
this  feems  to  have  been  fitted  for  the  frequent  perfe- 
fecutionsofthofe  eafjieragco,  when  every  church  was 
able  to  fecure  tts   own  fucce/Jimy  without  depending  on 
the   u.iccrtain  opport^initles  of  meeting  the  Bilbops 
of  the  whole  province  :    and   the  alteration  of  this 
prailice,  the  giving  the  Bifhops  of  the    province  an 
iiitereft_  in  the  choice  of  every  particular  CoHeaguc, 
feems  not  to  have  been  fo  much  from  want  of  power 
in  the  pa'-ticular  chii'-ches  to  do  it,  as    for  the  fecurjty 
of   compHifts  that  they   might  ba  certain   of  fuch  2 
colleague  as  wou'd  obf^rve  th-m  — It  is  probable  that 
it^was  in  i-mtation  of  thz  philofophers  fuccefftom^  x\\2Lt 
thefe  ecclefiadical  juccejfims  were   framed  ;  and   when 
the  philofophers  fiilca  to  nomnate  their  own  fuccef- 
fors,  the  elc6ton  was  in  the  fchoo's/    My  authar's 
remark  upon  thefe   wo.ds   is,    «   If    every   particu- 
lar church  had  ori  finally  3. power  within  iijef  to  chufe 
and  invcft  its  iJ.fhops,   and  the  conrurrence  of  Gthar 
Bifhops  herein  was  not  for  want  -y.  p-^iuer  in  that  par- 
ticular church,  but  only  for  fecu.  fng  the  agreement 
of  3  (hops  among  them^?^lve§,  wc  have  done  with  the 
neceflicy  of  a  continueo     ine  of  ep  (copal  ordinatLon, 
and  there  may  bs  true  miiiion  without  it»' 


62  REPLY  TO  THE 

I  HAD  fiid  of  the  fucceflion  pleaded  for  in'  tlse 
appeal,  '  that  it  is  not  capable  of  any  good  proof, 
nor  is  there  any  probability,  that  fo  long  a  chain, 
running  through  fo  many  ages  of  ignorance,  vio- 
lence, and  all  kinds  of  impofture,has  never  once 
been  broke,' (p.  15.)  TheDQ.6tpr  replies, '  This 
aficrtion  militates  as  forcibly  againlt  the  fuc- 
celTion  which  the  churches  in  the  Colonies  certainly 
heiieve^  as  againft  ^he  epifcopal,*  The  colony- 
churches  are  fo  far  '  from,  certainly  believing* 
what  the  Do£l:or  would  here  make  them  believe, 
that  they  care,  nothing  abaut  an  uninterrupted 
line,  either  of  Bifhops  or  Prefbytcrs  ;  as  they 
know  they  have  power  from  CHRIST  to  cpn- 
llitute  ciiicers  for  all  the  purpofes  of  the  gofpel- 
miniftry,  fliould  it  fo  happen,  that  the  line  of 
fuccefTion,  in  regard  of  Prefbyters,  af  well  as  Bi- 
fhops, had  been  interrupted  and  broken. 

The  Dodor  goes  on,  '  as  to  the  fucceffion  in 
the  line  of  Bifhops,  I  am  Hill  of  opinion,  that 
it  is  incumbent  on  the  oi:xje6hors  to  prove,  that 
ir  has  been  interrupted'.  One  would  naturally 
be  difpofed  to  think,  ft  was  incumbent  on  thofe, 
who  urge  iht  abfolute  neceflicy  of  the  non-iotcr- 
ruption  of  this  line,  in  oider  to  the  validity  of 
golpcl-adminiflrationS;  to  prOvd  that  it  has  not 
befen  interrupted  ;  cfpecially  if  they  are  the  admi- 
niftratois.  For  myfeh^,  I  am  free  to  own,  i  fliould 
rjDt  dare  CO  meddle  with  the  difpenfation  of  gof- 
pel-ordinances,  upoathe  du^li-ineof  an  uninter^ 
rupred  line,  \^n\t\%  I  was  able,  fairly  to  prove, 
that  I  was  tnyi^cl^  in  this  line  Witjiout  inter- 
ruption. 

Th3  Do61:or  here  mentions  fome  things  po- 
Jltively  in  favour  of  the  line's  being  unmter- 
rupted.  Says  he,  *  We  know,  by  the  bell  hif- 
torical   evideuce,  that  ic  \\x%  been  the  univerfal 

pradicc 


'APPEAL  DEFENDED.'         €^ 

practice  of  the  church,  from  the  time  of  the  A- 
podles  to  the  prefent  hour,  to  acknov/ledge  none 
for  Biiliops  who  were  not  ordained  by  other  Bi- 
Ihops.'  It  is  impoffible  he,  or  his  party,  (hould 
be  pofTeffcd  of  this  knowledge,  unlefs  in  imagi- 
nation only  *,  becaufe  it  can  have  exiftence  no 
where  elfe,  having  no  reality  as  a  truth,  from 
the  practice  of  any  one  chridian  church  for  the 
firft  two  hundred  years.  Throughout  this  long 
fpacc,  no  proof  can  be  given,  that  '  none  were 
acknowledged  forBlfliops,  who  v/ere  not  ordain- 
ed by  Bilhops*  in  the  impleaded  fenfe.  If  there 
can,  let  it  be  produced.  It  has  never  yet  been 
done,  and  I  challenge  the  Do6lor  to  do  it  :  nor 
indeed  was  it  ever  the  '  univerfal  pradlice,'  in 
any  age,  even  to  this  day,  to  '  acknowledge  none 
for  Blfliops,  but  thofe  who  were  ordained  by 
Bifhops,'  upon  the  plan  ofa  divine  right.  He 
goes  on,*  the  confecration  of  Bifhops  was  a  public 
ad— efteemed  to  be  a  matter  of  fuch  importance 
that  the  report  of  it  was  immediately  carried  ^vcn 
to  diftant  places — and,  in  difputed  cafes,  it  was 
eafy  to  difcover,  whether  the  perfoti  was,  in  re- 
ality, a  Bifhop  or  not  -,  or,  fuppofing  the  con- 
trary, that  no  one  would  /eceive  epiicopal  con- 
fecration from  fuch  hands.'  I  fhall  leave  it  with 
cofbmon  fenfe  to  judge, whether  this  is  any  ether 
tiran  a  fandy  bottom  to  build  one's  faith  upon, 
in  a  matter  of  fuch  elTeniial  concern  as  the  un- 
interruption  of  this  line  is  made  to  be.  And 
what  the  Dodlor  yet  adds  is  as  weak  an  one. 
Says  he,  '  We  know  from  fcripture,  that  if 
fuch  a  {occtiTion  is  as  ncccifary,  as,  upon  a  fpe- 
culativc  examination,  it  appears  to  be,  CHRIST 
has  promifed  to  preferve  and  continue  it  to  the 
end  of  the  world.'  That  is,  in  plain  englidi,  if 
it  be  fuppofed^  allowed,  and  taken  for  granted, 

thac 


64  REPLY    TO   THfi 

that  CHRIST  has  ma^e  an  iininterrupred  ftic- 
cefTion  necefTary,  he  will  take  care,  in  virtue  of 
his  promife,  to  prcferve  and  continue  it.  A  nota- 
ble dilcovcry  this  !  Who,  befides  the  Do(5lor, 
that  regards  his  charadler,  would  declare  in  the 
face  of  the  w^orld,  that  he  was  '  abundantly  fatis* 
fied  with  thefe  viirlous  kinds  of  ev-dnce/  in  an 
affair  eilentially  connedcd,in  bis  \iew,  withever- 
lafting  falvation,  which,  when  examined,  appear 
to  be  meer  nothing  ? 

I  HAD  faid,  that,  to  make  the  very  being  of  a 
church,  and  all  covenant  hopes  of  falvation,  to 
reft  upon  fo  precarious  a  foundation  as  an  unin* 
terrapied  fuccefnon  in  the  line  of  Bifhops,  was 
to  expofe  the  religion  of  CHRIST  to  ridi- 
cule •, — That  it  would  follow  upon  this  doc- 
trine, that  the  public  worfhip  of  the  non-epifco* 
paiian  Colonifts,  cf  all  the  diffenters  in  England^ 
and  of  all  the  reformed  churches  who  had  no  mi- 
nifters  baifuch  as  were  ordained  by  PiCibyters, 
v/ould  bj  an  affront  to  CHRIST  ;  and  that,  at 
the  reformation,  if  ihe  popifh  Bifhops  had  fluck 
to  their  old  prineiples,  and  diicoiTtinued  the  fuc- 
ccITion  by  refufing  to  ordain  any  but  thofe  of 
their  own  communion,  it  would  have  been  the 
duty  of  the  laity  to  have  lived  without  go f pel 
ordinances  till  a  new  commifiion  was  fcnt  from 
Heaven  to  give  authority  to  adminifler  them  ;-- 
And  I  am  greatly  confirmed  in  the  propriety 
and  force  of  thefe  objedions  by  what  the  Doc- 
tor has  faid  in  anfwer  to  them.  Let  the  reader 
compare  what  we  have  both  offered,  and  judge 
for  himfeJf,  And,  perhaps,  he  wdl  nOt  judge 
differently  from  Monfieur  ClaudCy  in  the  like 
cafe  ;  whofc  words  are  thefe.  "^      *  To  fpcak 

my 

♦  Hift.  dcf.  of  the  reform,  pait  4,  p.  97# 


•APPEAL  DEFENDED.^        ^ 


9 


my   thoughts  fffcly,  it   feems  to  me   that  this 
confident  opinion,  of  the  abfolutc  necefTicy  of 
Epifcopacy,    that   goes  fo   high  as   to  own   no 
church,  or   call,  or   minillry,  or  facraments,  or 
falvation,  in  the  world,  where  there  are  no  epif- 
copal  ordinations,   although  there  fhould  be  the 
true  doflrine,   the  true  faith  and   piety   there  ; 
and  which  would   make  all  religion   depend  up- 
on a/formality,  and  on  fuch  a  formality  as   wc 
have  fhewn  to  be  of  no  other  than  human  infti- 
tution  ;  that  opinion,  I  fay,cannot  be  looked  on 
oiherwife  than  as  the  very  worft  character  and 
mark  of  the   higheft  hypocrify,  a  piece  of  pha- 
rifaifm   all    over,     that   ftrains   at   a    gnat  and 
fwallows  a  camel  •,  and  I  cannot  avoid  having,  an 
lead,  a  contempt  of  thofe  kind  of  thoughts,  and 
a  companion  for  thofe  who  fill  their  heads  with 
them.' 

It  was  further  obferv^d,  in  anfwer  to  the  ap-'^ 
peal,  '  That  the  worft  of  this  doctrine  of  an  unin- 
terrupted fucccfiion  is,  its  being  derived  through 
the  church  of  Rome  •,'  concerning  which  it  is 
declared  by  the  church  of  England  in  her  ho- 
milies, '  that  as  at  prelent  it  is,  and  hath  been 
for  nine  hundred  years,  itis-/^  far  from  being 
of  the  nature  of  the  true  church,  that  no- 
thing CAN  BE  MORE-,*  bcfidcs  which,  fhe  ex- 
plicitly fpeaks  of  this  church  as  a  joul,  fil- 
thy, OLD,    WITHERED  HARLOT,    the  FOULIST 

and  FILTHIEST  that  was  ever  seen.'  Whac 
ROW  is  the  Doctor's  reply  ?  He  gives  it  in  a  paf» 
fage  he  quotes  from  Mr.  Whitt^%  defence,  the 
whole  force  of  which,  fo  far  as  there  is  any,  lies 
in  thefe  words,  '  Harlot  as  (be  is,  (he  may  bring 
forth  children,  as  well  as  an  honeft  and  virtuous 
matron,  and  fometimes  children  far  better  than 
their  parent.    And  if  I  muft  derive  my  fpiritual 


66  REPLY  TO  THE 

pedigree  from  a  harlot^  I  had  rather  It  fhould  be. 
an  old  withered  one,  of  an  ancient   and  honoura- 
ble line,  than  a  ycung  ftrumpct  of  no  name  and. 
family,    and   who  came  into  the   world  but  yef- 
ttrday.'      The  Do61or  cannot  be  more  lurprifed 
at  my  being  '  unacquainted  with  this  defence  of 
Mr.  White^  as  he  thinks  1  '  appear  to  be,'  than 
I  am  at  his   injudicioufncfs    in  bringing   it    into 
view.     If  Bifhops  derive  their  cxiftence,  ^w ///<r/^, 
from  an  acknowledged  whore,  they  mufi,  with- 
out all  controverfy,  be  horn  of  fornication.     Is  io 
polTible    a    whore,   a  foul,   filthy    whore 
Hiould,  being  an  adulteress,    bring  forth  any 
Other  than  a  base-born,   spurious  race  ?  And 
it  matters  not,  whether  flic  be  2, young  whore,  or 
an  c\d  "dvitbered  QUQ,     The  Dodor  may  prefer  an^ 
€pif copal  pedigreeSvom  a  withered  whore-^  having 
cxiiled  luch  for  many   hundreds  of  years,  being 
on  thisaccount,  an  ancient  whore,  and  an  koncurable 
one,(ifthisi$not  a  moral  impoflibility)to  a  defcent 
from  zyoungflrmnpet  of  no  name  or  family.  He  fl:!all 
have  his  choice  for  all  me  ;  but  let  him  remem- 
ber, in  either  of  thefc  cafes,  the  defcendants  will 
be  haflards,  and  not  fons.       Befides,  he  has  not 
feen  fit  to  fay  a  word,  cither  from  himfclf,  or  Mr. 
White,  by  which  we  ii^ay  be  informed,  hew  that 
church   can    communicate   true  genuine    orders^ 
which  the  homilies,  he  has   lubkribed  to,  de- 
clare to  have    been'    nine    hundred    years 
pad   so   FAR    from   having  the   nature    of  the 
true  church,  that  nothing   can    be  more. 
As  the  dilTenting  Gentleman  ^  reafons  with  great 
propriety   and    flrength,    '  What    miracles    arc 
here  !    That  which   is  no  true  churchy   nor  has 
heen  any  thing  like  it  for  a  thoufand  ^ears  faft  ; 

yet 

J    Anfyy.  to  Whttt^  p.  to/^  ^ 


^APPEAL  DEFENDED/       €; 

yet  c6nveys  true,  regular  offices  and  powers  ! 
An  anti-apoftolic  church  imparting  genuine  tf/>^- 
ftolic  orders  !  The  fynagogue  of  fat  an  becomes 
the  f acred  repofitory,  wherein  the  power  o{ ordina- 
tion to  holy  offices,  in  CHRIS  F's  church,  for 
more  than  ten  centuries^  principally  reded,  and 
was  almoit  only  to  be  found  !  The  church  of 
Rome^  which,  by  apoftacy  harh  cut  itfelf  off  from 
the  l^ody  of  CHRIST^  hath  neverthclcfs  his  fpi- 
r// and  authority  dwelling  in  it -,  and  is  com- 
iniffioncd  by  CHRIST  to  examine,  ordain,  and 
fend  minifters  into  his  church,  for  the  edifying 
his  body,  and  perfecting  his  faints  !  How  in 
every  view  marvellous  and  tranfcendant  is  this  1* 

The  Doctor  fays  nothing  further,  m  this  fee- 
tion,  in  his  own  defence,  that  calls  for  enlarge- 
ment by  way  of  reply. 

Though  he  had  needlefsly  introduced  an  ex- 
traft,  in  his  appeal,  from  Chil/ingfworth's  de- 
monft ration  of  Epifcopacy,  I  thought  it  proper 
to  take  fome  notice  of  it.  What  lie  has  offer- 
ed in  his  defence,  is,  as  I  apprehend,  very  little 
to  the  purpofe.  1  dcfire  therefore  nothing  more, 
than  that  the  reader  would  examine  what  we 
have  both  laid,  and  then  judge  between  us. 

He  docs  not  deny,  thit  Bilhop  Burnet^  when 
he  wrote  his  vindication  of  the  church  of  Scot- 
land, '  believed  Biffiops  and  Prefbyters  to  be  fc'* 
vcral  degrees  of  the  fame  office.'  But  he  adds^' 
*  his  fubfequent  writings  afford  innumerablG 
proofs,  that  he  afterwards  believed  the  dodrine 
of  Epifcopacy,  both  by  the  evidence  of  fcrip- 
ture,  and  the  pradice  of  the  primitive  church.* 
When  he  wrote  his  vindication,  he  believed  the 
dodlrinc  of  Epifcopacy  in  the  fenfe  that  nineteen  in 
twenty  of  the  members  of  the  church  of  England 
believed  it  then,  and  believe  ic  now  ^  but  thac 

he 


6S  REPLY    TO   THE 

he  ever  believed  It  in  the  Do(?l:or's  fenfe,  or  that 
be  ever  wro.c  any  thing  from  whence  this  can 
be  made  evident,  I  fhaii  noc  be  perfuaded  to 
think,  until  I  have  bccter  proof  of  it  than  bare 
affirmation  ^  :  nor  i  (hajl  believe,  ih^tS liliin^fleei 
ever  departed  fo  far  from  the  fentiments  or  his 

Irenicum^ 

*  It  is  ftrangc  the  Do£lor  has  given  us  no  pr«of  from 
anv  of   the   '  writings'    of    Bifhop  Burnet,    as    they 
*  afford   innumerable  proofs/  that   he    believed   the 
^odtrine  of  Epiicopacy,  in  the  impleaded  fenfe.      It 
may  reafonably  be  luppofed,  it  was  net  in  his  power 
to  do  this   ;    and  the  rather,  becaufe  the  Biflicp  de- 
clared the  fcntiments  mentioned  in  the  anfwcr  to  the 
appeal,  when    Epiicopacy  was  in  its  zer.ith,  and  it 
might  be  cxpeded,  on  that  account,  that  he  \vov;ld 
have  fpoken  as  highly  of  it,  as  his  ccnTcience  would 
permit.     And  yet,  he  is  particularly  exprefs  in  mak- 
ing Bifnop  and  Prtibyter,  not  diftin^f  orders,  but  dif-^ 
ferent  degrees  only  in  the  Tame  office.     His  words'  are 
thefe,  which  1  choofe  to  quote,  that  the  reader  may 
fee  in  how  full  and  ftrong  a  m.anner  he  delivers  his 
fcntiments   upon  this   head.     Sa)s  he,  Vjnd.  of  the 
the  church  of  Scotlan'i,  p    310,  '  I  do  not  a'ledgc  a 
Bifhop  to  be  a  diftirtSl  ofHce  from  a  Pre(b)ter,  but  a 
different  degree  of  the  fame  cffice.' — And  again,   p. 
33  [,  '  1  acknowledj^e  Bifhop  and  Prtfoyter  to  be  one 
arid    the  far^e  ciHce,  and  To  plead  for  no  new  cfficc- 
bearer  in  cne  church.     1  he  firfl  branch  of  their  pow- 
er is  their  authority  to  publifh  the  gofpel,  to  manage 
the  woifhip,  and  difpenfc  the  facraments  j  and  this 
is  ALL  that  IS  of    DiviNH    RIGHT     in    the     mini- 
ftry,     in       which    Bifliops    and     Prefbyters       are 
equally  fharcrs  :   But  befides  this,  the  church  cJaim- 
£tn  a  power  of  juiifdi6tion,  of  making  rules  for  di(ci- 
pUne,  and  executing  the  fame ;    all  which  indeed  is 
lutabietothe  common  laws  of  focieties,  and  the  ge- 
laeral  ruUs  of  fcripture,  but  hath  no  pofitive  warrant 
from   any  fcripture  precept — Therefore,   as  to  the 
managerricnt  of  this  juiifdidion,  it  is  in  the  church's 
pew^r  to  caft  it  into  what  mould  ihc  will*'-' * 


'     ^APPEAL  defended;        % 

Irenicum,  as  to  fall  in  with  the  Do6lor  in  his  no- 
tion ofihcjure  divinino-fkip  of  BiHiops  in  diftinc- 
tion  from  Prefbyters,  before  I  fee  it  otherwife 
evidenced  than  by  his  naked  affertion. 

1  SHALL  take  this  opportunity  to  afiure  the 
Dodlor,  that  I  am  not  afhamed  openly  to  de- 
clare, that  I  pay  '  more  deference  to  btihinzfleet, 
Reftor  of  Surton,  than  to  Stillingfleet^  Dean  of 
Sc  Paul's,  or  Bifhop  of  Worcefter,  in  the  difputc 
relative  to  Epifcopacy.'  He  may  call  this  '  par- 
tiality, abfurd,  and  prepofterous  :'  But  it  may 
be,  the  Public  will  think  with  me,  that  a  ree- 
torjkip^  or  bifhopric  might  have  fome  influence 
to  enlarge  his  notions  of  the  power  and  dignity 
of  Bifhops,  though  never  that  I  know  of,  to  the 
height  the  Dodor  would  carry  them. 

As  to  /irch-Bifliop  UJher^  that  known  and  ce- 
lebrated antiquary,  it  is  as  evident  as  a  fadt  of 
this  nature  can  be,  that  it  was  his  fettled  opini- 
on, 'That  Bifliops  and  Prefbyters  differ  only  in 
degree,  not  in  order.  What  the  Do(5l:or  has  faid 
tends  only  to  difguife,  not  to  invahdate  this 
truth.  1  never  faid,  or  thought,  that  the  Arch- 
Bifhop  eiteemtd  ordination  k>y  Prefbyters  regular^ 
where  there  were  BiQiops  by  whom  it  might  be 
obtained.  But  it  is  indifputable,  even  from 
the  very  words  omitted  by  mc,  in  the  Arch-Bi- 
fhop's  letter  to  Bernard^  but  cite^  by  the  Doc- 
tor, that  he  accounted  ordination  by  Prefoyters  t9 
he  valid  in  placjs  where  Bijhops  cannot  he  had  ; 
which  is  cfTentially  inconfiftent  with  the  Dodor's 
fcheme.  The  plain  truth  is,  the  Afch-Bifhop 
neither  thought  Bifhops  were  a  dif^indl  order 
from  Prefbyters,  or  that  ordination  was,  by  di- 
vine appointment,  appropriated  to  that  order. 
This  is,  beyond  all  reafonablc  difpute,  evident 
from  his  own  words,  profelTedly  ufed  in  arguing 

upon 


*j6  REPLY  TO    THE,   ^c. 

upon  this  point,  as  produced  by  Dr.  Parr  who 
•wrote  his  hfc.  *  They  run  thus.  '  The  intrin- 
fical  power  o^  ordaining  proceeds  not  fron^Jurif. 
dt^Iion,  but  only  from  order.  But  a  Prelbytcr 
hath  xhcfame  order  in  fpecie  with  aBilliop.  Er- 
go, a  Prcfbyter  hath  equally  an  intrinfical  power 
io  give  order ^  and  is  equal  to  him  in  the  power  of 
crders  :  The  Bifliop  having  no  higher  degree 
in  refpc^l  of  the  intention  or  extenfion  of  the  cha- 
racter of  order,  though  he  hath  an  higher  degree 
(i.  e.  a  more  eminent  place)  in  refpedl  of^«- 
thority  znd  juri/di^ion  in  fpiritual  regiment.* 

The  Dodtor  fini(hes  this  firft  ledtion  by  de- 
claring, '  That  he  is  more  eftabiiflied  than  ever 
in  the  belief  that  Epifcopacy  is  not  only  an- 
cient, and  catholic,  but  truly  apoftolical.'  But 
this  faith  of  his,  and  the  publication  of  it,  arc 
to  no  purpofe.  He  made  his  appeal  to  the 
*  impartial  Public  ;'  and  to  this  tribunal  the 
difpute,  on  both  fides,  is  fubmitted.  They 
therefore  arc  our  Judges,  and  it  muft  be  kit 
with  them  to  decide  in  this  matter. 


*  Appendix  to  his  life,  p.  6> 


Reply 


Reply  to  Dr.    Chandler's 
Second  Sedlion. 


THE  Dodlor  has  fcen  fit,  for  reafons  bed 
known  to  himfelf,  to  pals  over  almoft  eve- 
ry thing,  (his  fedion  relates  to,  that  was  mate- 
rial ',  choofing  to  detain  his  readers,  from  the 
main  point,  by  calling  their  attention  to  that 
which  is  of  comparatively  fmall   importance. 

He  thought  it  proper,  in  his  appeal,  to  makq 
a  diftindion   '  between   the  feveral   things  that 
had  been  added  to  the  epifcopal  office,  and  thofe 
which   originally    and  eiTenrially   belong    to  it.* 
It  was  faid  in  reply,  '  The  queftion  is  not,  whe- 
ther thefc  and  fuch  like  appendages  to  the  epif- 
copal office   will  be  deftrudive  of  the  powers 
which  effentially  belong  to  it  ;  but  whether  they 
do  not  unfit  the  perfons  veiled  with  it  for  the 
proper  difcharge  of  the   duties  of  it  ?  infomuch 
that  it  would  be  unreafonable  to  add  fuch   ap- 
pendages, and  as  much  fo  to  expe£l,  if  they  arc 
added,  that  chriftian  profeiTors  fhould  not  com- 
plain  of  it  as  an   intolerable  grievance,'      The 
Doftor  affeds,  to  be  at  a  lofs  to  know,  who  I 
meant  by  '  chriftian    profefTors,*  by  his  crying 
©uc  '  Frofeflbrs  of  what  1*     I  will  tell  him,  pro- 

lefTors 


^z^  REPLY  TO  THE 

feflbrs  of  faith  in  CHRIST,  as  the  one  only  si/- 
PRE  ME  HEAD  of.the  church,  in   opposition  to  all 
other  claims,    whether  they   arc    made  by   the 
Pope,    or  any  chriftian   Princes   or    states 
whatever.     He  then  lays,  '  Whether  the  addi- 
tion of  fuch  appendages  be  reafonable,  or    un- 
rcafonable,  is  nothing  to  me  ;  and,  which  is  much 
niore,  it  is  nothing  to  the  cafe  of  fuch   an  Epif- 
copat«  as  is  propoled  for  America.'    Why  then, 
in  the  name   of  v/ondcr,  did   he  fay  any   thing 
about  thefe  appendages  ?   If  it  was   nothing  lo 
him,,  that   is,  the  caufe  he    was   defending,  and 
nothing  to  the  cafe  of  an  American  Epifcopate, 
it  was  mod  certainly  to  no  purpofe  for  him  to 
fay  a  word  about  them. 

In  profecuting  the  diftinflion  he  had  made, 
he  obferved,  '  He  who  has  a  fmall  diocefs  has 
the  fame  epifcopal  powers,  as  he  that  has  a  largs 
one  ;  and  it  matters  not  as  to  the  validity  of  the 
^6t,  whether  it  be  performed  by  the  one  or  the 
other.'  To  which  it  was  anfwered,  as  he  has 
fummed  up  the  anfwer,  *  It  certainly  does  as  to 
his  capacity  ro  ferve  the  ends  of  his  office  •,  and 
there  is, in  proportion,  the  fame  incongruity  in 
placing  Bidiops  ac  the  head  of  lar^e  diocelTeSj 
as  in  having  an  univerfal  one.'  What  now  fays 
the  Do6lor  to  this  .?  His  reply  is,  '  This  confi- 
dcred  as  an  anfwer  to  me,  and  in  no  other  light 
arc  we  authorifed  to  confider  it,  amounts  to  no 
m©rethan  this  -,  that  although  what  I  faid  is  al- 
lowed to  be  true,  yet  fomething  that  1  did  not 
fay  is  entirely  falfe.  The  thing  which  I  did  not 
fay  is,  that  a  Bifhiop  is  as  able  to  ferve  the  great 
ends  of  his  ofHcc  in  a  large  diocefs  as  in  a  fmall 
one.'  It  is  true,  he  did  not  lay  this;  but  it  is  as 
true,  that  it  was  with  propriety,  and  irrefiftablc 

forcf 


^APPEAL  DEFENDED. 


71 


force  that  I  faid  ir.  He  knows,  ,or  is  grofs!/ 
ignorant,  that  wc  never  difowried  the  validity  of 
cpifcopai  ads, where  Bifhops  had  large  dioceires. 
He  knows  alfo,  unlefs  he  i^  an  utter  (tranger  to 
the  non-epifcopaiian  fentiments,that  we  judge  ic 
higbly  im^  roper,  and  an  intolerabl.  grievance, 
that  Bi(h(5ps  fhould  be  at  the  head  of  large  dio- 
celTes  \  becaufw  ic  dellroys  their  capacity  to 
Icrve  the  ends,  defigned  by  CHRIbiT  in  the  in- 
flitution  of  their  ofnce.  His  only  bufinefs 
therefore  was  to  fhow,  that  this  appendage  did 
not  affctf):  the  Biihop*s  capacity  to  aniwer  the 
ends  of  h'.s  appointment.  As  the  '  validity'  of 
epifcopal  ads  was  never  called  in  qucflion,  on 
account  of  the  largtnefs,  or  fmallnefs,  of  their 
diocefies,  his  mentioriing  this  appendage  was 
quite  imperiincnt,  unlefs  wieh  a  view  to  prove, 
in  oppofidon  to  us,thac  ic  v/ould  confift  with  the 
Bifhops  duty  *,  which,  it  flaould  feem,  he  does 
think  was  any  part  of  what  he  was  called  to. 
However,  he  goes  on,  '  If  I  had  faid  this  [that  a 
Bidiop  is  as  able  to  ferve  the  ends  of  his  office 
in  a  large  diocels,  as  a  fmall  one,]  unlefs  the 
large  diocefs  is  fuppofed  to  be  larger  than  in  any 
protellant  country — it  woald  not  have  been  fa 
very  exceptionable.** — Much  might  be  faid  here, 
but  I  (hall  make  no  other  anfwer  than 'this,  that 
when  the  Doftor  underdands  the  full  meaning 
ofthofe  words  of  our  Saviour,  '  My  kingdom. 
is  not  of  this  world,'  and  has  his  mind  imprefTed 
with  ajufi  fenfc;  of  the  duty  incumben:  on  a  Bi- 
fhop  in  the'churchof  CHRIST,  I  have  no  doubc 
but  he  Will  alter  his  fentimenis  upon  this  head. 

He  now  pafTcs  on  ro  the  trice  worn-out  in- 
(lances  of  Aerius  and  Coliutbus,  but  without  fay-* 
ing  any  thing  worthy  of  detaining  us  very  long. 

As  to  Acrius  ^  I  had  faid,  '  Tha:  Eujpbanius 


t4  REPLY  TO  THE 

was  the  firft  that  found  fauk  with  him,  for  his 
c^:)inIon  of  the  parity  of  Bifliops  and  Prefbyrers.' 
Upon  this  the  Dodor,  that  he  might  make  fome 
Ihew  of  karning,  egregiQiifsly  trifies.  The  on- 
ly thing  that  needs  a  remark  is,  his  obfe^rving, 
*  If  an  intimation  is  intended,  xhdit  Ephiphanius 
was  the  only  perfon  that,  at  firft,  confidered  the 
doctrine  of  Aerins  as  exceptionable,  cr  that  the 
parity  of  Bifhops  and  Prefbyters  was  generally 
admitted  m  the  fourih  century,  the  fuggeftion  is 
groundlefs.  The  united  voice  of  ant'cuity,  and 
even  the  GGncefTions  of  our  moll  confiderable  ad- 
verfaries,  prove  tlie  contrary  with  invincible 
evidence.'  This  is  riot  the  firft  or  fecond 
time,  that  the  Dodcr  has  difcovered  his  little 
■  acquaintance  with  antiquity  -,  though  he  fpraks 
with  pofiiive  aiTu ranee,  as  though  he  was  the  mott 
learned  antiquary.  Epifcopnl  writers  of  iht 
firft  figure,  luch  as  Re:g?:oldSy  Jewel,  Bridges, 
Biiliop  of  O.xford,  Whitaker,  Regius  Profeflor 
of  diviniiy  in  the  Univerfity  of  Camh'idge,  Stil- 
hngfieet^  and  others,  would  have  informed  him, 
had  he  not  read  the  original  authors,  that  Je* 
rom^  Auft'ui^  /!?}-hrcfe^  6eciu!ius^  Fnwafius^  Clry- 
fiftoiii^  Thccphy'.a^^  vere,  as  to  the  identity  of 
order  upon  the  footing  of  divine  right,  of  the 
fame  opinion  with  rjerius,  diough  they  lived 
much  about  the  fame  time  ;  and,  1  may  add, 
lo  were  CltmcJit  of  Rome,  Polycarp^  Jtiftt^-^  and 
Jren^us,  who  lived  before  him.  It  \6  not  there- 
fore in  the  leaR  probable,  that  /lerius  was  con- 
demned CHIEFLY,  as  the  Do(5^or  fays,  for  his 
opinion  concerning  the  parity  of  Bifliops  and 
Prefbyters.  Plad  this  been  the  cafe,  moft  of 
his  contemporaries  mull  have  been  condemned 
likewife,  as  they  were  chargeable  with  the  fame 
monflrous  hercfy.      It  is  far  more  reafunable  to 

think,. 


«  A  P  P  E  A  L  D  E  F  E  N  DE  D/         yy 

think,  that  he  a£lcd  in  oppofuion  to  the  then 
general  practice,  exciting,  in  confequcnce  of  his 
opinion,  divifions  and  diicord  ;  and  that  this, 
among  other  things,  was  the  true  reafon  of  his 
condemnation.  .  And  this  indeed  appears  to  be 
the  purport  of  the  account,  the  Doctor  himlelf 
has  given  us  from  Aiofheim^  the  only  evidence 
he  has  brought  to  prove,  that  Aerius  was  con- 
demned, not  '  meerly  or  only,'  as  I  had  faid, 
fcut  CHIEFLY  for  hi3  opinion  concerning  the 
identity  of  BiO-iops  and  Prefbyters. 

As  to  Collyihus  ;  he  hasaddcdan'  ex  trad  from 
the  fynodical  epillle  of  the  Bilhops  of  Egypt, 
^heha'is^  Lyhia,  and  Pontcipolis,  and  from  a  joint 
Itiit^:  of  the  Clergy  of  the  Province  of  Mareo- 
Sis^  both  preferved  in  the  Vv'orks  of  Athanafius^ 
But  ii  he  had  I'een  fir,  as  he  was  def.red,  to  con- 
fult  Biondei^s  Apologia,  or  what  is  faid  from  it 
in  the  Irenicum,  he  would  have  found  a  full 
anfwer  to  thtfc  extrads.  1  (liall  here  lay  before 
his  view  what  is  faid  in  the  Irenicum  as  a  fum- 
mary  of  Blondelh  reurefentation.  It  is  in  thefe 
v/ords,*'  Firft,  the  pronouncing  fuch  an  ordina* 
tion  null  doth  not  eVidence,ihat  they  looked  on  or- 
dination as  belonging,  of  divine  right;,  only  to  Bi- 
lliops  J  for  we  find,  by  many  inftances,  that  act- 
ing m  a  bare  contempt  of  ecclefialtical  canons 
.Wds  fufficient  to  degrade  any  from  being  Pref- 
byters.  Secondly,  if  Ifchyras  had  been  ordain- 
ed by  a  Bifhop,  there  were  circumilances  enough 
•to  induce  the  council  to  pronounce  it  null, 
Firll,  as  done  out  of  the  diocei's,  in  which  cafe 
ordinations  arc  nulled  by  council.  Arei.  c.  13, 
Secondly,  Done  by  open  and  pronounced  Ichif- 
matics.  Thirdly,  ^ox\q  fne  titulo^  and  lo  nulled 
by     t:;e   dicn   canons.      Thirdly,   CcU)tkus  did 

*  Ircn.  p.    381,   382, 


~j6  REPLY  TO  THE 

nor  aci:  as  aPrefoyter  in  ordaining,  but  as  a  Bi- 
fhop  of  the  Meletian  party  in  Cynus,  as  the  Cler- 
gy of  Mareotis  Ipeakmg  ot  JJchyra..,  his  ordina- 
tion by  Cohythus  a  Pici'byfer,  making  (hew  of 
being  a  Bilhop  ;  and  is  fuppo.ed  to  have  been 
ordaincrd  a  Bilhop  by  Meiettus.^ 

I  NOV/  come,nniy  readers,  to  hold  out  to  your 
view,   not   a  '  curiosity,'  but   a    m.irveiious 
phe^nonicrnQn   in  the    *  regions  of  conirovcrfy/ 
-The  Dod:or   had  faid,    in  his  appeal,   'No  in- 
{lanc€  of  an  ordination  by  meer  Preibyters   can 
be  found   in  the  church  for   feveral   ages.'     It 
was  oifered  m  reply,  '  We  (lioald  take  it  kindly 
to  have    pointed  cut  to  us   fo  much    as  one    in- 
fiance,  within  the   long  period   of  an    hundred 
and  fifty  years  from  CHRIST,  of  an  ordination 
by  anyBiinop,in  any  part  of  the  chriClian  world  •, 
meaning  by  a  BiQiop,  an  offictr  in  the   church 
fuperior  to  a    Prefoyter.       1   have  lately   been 
looking  over  the  extracts  I  made  twenty    years 
agro  from  the  fathers   of    the    two   first 
CENTURIES,  and  do  not  find   a  single  exam- 
.PLE    of  an  ordination  by  Bifbops,  in  the  appro- 
priated fcnfe,  within    the  time   before   fpccificd. 
if  the  Dodor  would  prcleni  us  with  one  [that  is 
>from    th:i   FATHERS     Within    this    time    jit 
y/ould  be  to  me  a  great  favour.'     What  now   is 
the  Doftor's  anlwer  ?  It  follows  in  thele  words, 
*  Behold,   reader,   a  cu'riofity.      1  his  very   fame 
challenge  he   made  in  his  Dudltuin  ledure,     (p. 
?o  )  to   which  a  formal    and  diredl   anfwer  has 
been  given  by  Mr.  Learning.       H'S  words  areas 
follow  :   I    will  comply  with  his  (Dr.  Chaur>cf%) 
demand  ;  and  I  hope  he  will  allow  the  autho- 
rity of  my  author.      I  might  produce  many,  but 
for    brevity's    fake    (hall    mention   but   one    in- 
ftance  ;  and  that   is  the  ordination  of  T^iius  by 

St. 


«  APPEAL  DEFENDED.*        77 

St.  Paul.     That  Titus  had  an  epifcopal  ordina- 
tion appears  from  the  charge  St.  Paul  gave  him> 
Tit.  \[  5.     *  For  this  caufc  left  I  thee  in  Crete, 
that  thou  fhouldeft  fet  in  order  the  things  that 
are  wanting,  and  ordain  elders   in  every  city,  as 
1  HAD    APPOINTED    THEE.'      St.  Paul  charged 
him  to  '  rebuke  with  all  authoriry  /  and  again, 
*  a  man  that  is  an  heretic,  after  the  firftand  fe- 
cond  admonition,  rejed.'     Here    St.  Paul  com- 
mitts  to  Titus  the  whole  power  of  ordaining  el- 
ders in  Crete,  and  of  governing  them,  and   all 
the  chriftians  in  that  Ifland.     This  authority  is 
clearly  cxprefTcrd,   and  the  bounds,  in  which   he 
was  toexer.ifc  it,  diilindly  m«rked  our.      Thus 
it  appears,   that  this  was  an  epijcopal  ordination 
in  our  fenfe  of  the  matter.     Our  Biihops   claim 
nothing  but  the  very  fame  po\^er  that  St.  Paul' 
gave  to   Titus  over  the  Ifland  of  Crete.'     Hav- 
ing cited  this  palTage  fr(3m  Mr.  Learnings  he  goes 
on,  '  Is    not  this  a   fair  and  full  anfwer  to  the 
Dodlor's  demand  ?  Ought  he  then  to  be  unfa- 
tisfied,    when  all   that  he   afks  has   been   given 
him?*  UnlefstheDo6lor[  C-^^w^/tr]  will  allow  me 
to  fuppofe,  that  he  pofTcfTes  underftanding  but  in 
a  very  low  degree,  which  I  would   not  chufe  to 
do,  I  mud  hold  myfelf  obliged  to  think,   ihac 
he  KNEW  that  this  was  neither  ^fair  or  full  zw- 
fwer  •,  and  that  1   had  no  reafon  to  be  fatisfied 
with   it,   as  NOTHING  that  I  afked,  inltead   of 
EVERY   THING,  had   been  given  me.      Was  it 
pofTible  one  of  common  difcernment  fhould  noc 
perceive   the  grofs  impertinence  of  Mr.  Learn- 
ing m  bringing  to  view  a  pretended  scripture 
inHance    ot  epifcopal  ordination,  when  the  in- 
ftance  I  defired,  in  as  pkin  language  as  I  could 
fpeak,  was  one  from  the  Fathers  of-  the  chrif- 
tian  church.     Would  the   Do6lor  have  thought 

I 


ya  REPLY  TO  THE 

I  had  given  zfair  Tini  full  anfwer  to  thatafiirma« 
tion  of  his,  '  There  is  not  an  inftance  of  ordina- 
tion  by  Prefbyrers   to  be   found  in  the   church 
for  fcveral    ages,'  if  I    had  only    faid,  *  I  might 
produce  many,  bur  for  brevity's  fake  Ihall  men. 
tion  but  one  inftance/  and  that  is  the  ordinaiioo 
-  of  'ri7notby  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
Prefbytery  •,    producing    only    thofe  arguments 
that  had  been    ufed  an  hundred  times  over   to 
prove,    that  this  was  an   ordination  by   Prefby* 
cers  ?  I  am  eiTentially  miftaken  in  the  Doclor, 
and  that  convened  body  which  firft  put  him  up' 
on  -writing,  if  they  would   not. have  laughed  at 
the  menrion  of  fuch    an  inflance,  in   oppofiiiorj 
to   the  above   afiirmation,  and    treated   it  with 
contempt  as  being  altogether  trifling.     He  pro- 
ceeds,   '  Is    ir  not  very    extraordinary,    that  he 
(Dr.  Cbauncy)  fhould  fo  roundly^repeat  the  de- 
mand without  the  leaft   notice  of  Mr.  Leamino^s 
anfwer  ?'  The   Doctor  will    not  venture  to  fay, 
he  had    not  read  the   following   words  of  mine 
concerning  Mr.  Learnings   in  the  letter  prefixed 
to  Mr.  Welles\  anfwer  to  him,  '  Was  I  inclined 
to  engage  in  the  epifcopal  controverfy,  1  fhpuld 
chufe    for  my    opponent,  one    that    is    better 
able  to  manage  a  difpute,  than  he  appears  lo  me 
to  be.'     This  is  fufBcient  to'account  for  mv  re- 
petition of  the  demand,  when  lo  fair  an  occafion 
was  offered  for  it.       The  Doilor  will  doubtlefs 
think  it    fufncienc.     And    as  to  my  doing  this 
*  without  taking  the  leaft  notice   c;f  Mr.   Leam- 
ing's  anfwer,'  the  plain  truth  is,  I  did  not  cReem 
ic  worthy  of  the  leaft  notice,  or  that  any  one  clfe 
would,  that   had  any  confidcrable  degree  of  in- 
telledual    diicernmenr.       Bcfides,     the    Docftor 
knows   Mr.  IFelles  had  wrote  an  anfwer  to  Mr. 
Learning,  in  v/hich  he  nullified  this  produced  in- 
i  fiance 


^APPEAL  defended;       79 

ftance,  and  all  that  was  faid  upon  it  ;  particu- 
larly fignifying  to  him,  and  to  the  Public  ihar, 
the  example  of  epifcopal  ordination  wanted,  and 
defired,  was  to  be  feleded,  not  from  ihtjcrip. 
ture^  but  from  one  or  another  of  the  Fathers 
of  the  two  firfl:  centuries  :  Notwithftanding 
which,  the  Dodor  has  carefully  avoided  a  com- 
pliance with  my  demand  \  though  repeatedly 
made,  and  fo  particularly  explained  as  not  to  be 
capable  of  being  mifunderftood.  How  then 
could  he,  -v^ithout  biufhing,  go  on,  and  fay,  '  I 
have  fometimcs  met  with  peiTons  who  would  al- 
ledge  the  arguments  of  others  that  had  been  an- 
fwered,and  the  obje£lions  oi  others  that  had  been 
confuted  [He  is  himfelf  an  eminent  inftance  of 
this]  without  taking  notice  of  the  faid  anfwers 
and  confutations  ;  but  Dr.  Cbauncy  \s  the  firft 
man  I  have  found  in  any  of  the  regions  cf  con- 
troverfy,  that  could,  without  any  fymptoms  cf 
perturbation,  deal  thus  with  his  own  arguments 
and  objections,  after  they  had  been  formally  an- 
fwered  and  confuted.* — One  cannot  help  think- 
ing that  the  Dodlor  found  himfelf  greatly  puz- 
ied,  not  knowing  what  to  fay.  To  give  the 
defircd  inilance  was  not  in  his  power — To  de- 
clare that  it  was  not,  v/ould  have  had  an  ill  af- 
ped:  on  the  caufe  he  was  defending — To  fay  no» 
thing  might  have  kfiened  his  reputation  as  the 
fcleded  epifcopal-champion.  The  bed  method 
therefore  was  to  fay  fomething,  though  it  fhould 
not  be  to  the  purpofe  \  but  to  do  it  in  the  ufe  of 
language  that  might  lead  ignorant  readers  to 
imagine,  that  he  had  effcclually  done  the  bufmefs. 
If  the  Do6lor  can  give  a  better  account  of  his 
•^ondud,  let  him  do  ic. 

He    now  knows,   if  he   is   capable  of  being 
made  to  know,  that  what  I  defire  is,  an  inflance 

of 


to  REPLY    TO    THE 

of  EPISCOPAL   ORDINATION,  in  the  appropna* 
ted  Icnle,  from  feme  or  other  of  the  Fathers 
within  an  hundred  and  fifty  years  fromCHRIST. 
The  demand,  he  owns  '  is  fair  ;'  and  it  is  modeft 
likewife,  as   one    instance  only  is  required, 
which  he  may  fetch  from   any  part  of  the  then 
chriftian  world.     He  is  eiiher  able  to    give  an 
inftance,  or  he  is  not.       If  he  is  able,  lei  him  do 
it  •,  and  1  will  frankly  acknowledge,  in  the  face 
of  the  world,  that  1  have  been  millaken  :   If  he 
is  not  able,let  him  as  frankly  and  openly  acknow- 
ledge it,  and  not  divert  his  readers  with  telling 
them  oi  curiof4ies   and  extraordinarks  in  the  re- 
gions of  contro\?erfy,   which   have  no  exigence 
but  as  creatures  of  imagination.      1  fhall  only 
add,  as  I  am  in  fome  follicitude   for  him,  left  he 
fhould  not  be  able,  meerly  of  himfelf,   to    pro- 
duce the  defircd  iniiance,  I  would  advife  him  to 
call  in  the  aid  of  the  learned  convention,  of  which 
he  is  a  member  ;    or  if  they  fhould  not   be  fuf-^ 
ficient,  let  him  feek  further  help  from  any  of  the 
.rpifcopal  Clergy    on   the  American  Continent, 
It  is  really  worth  his   while  to  be  at  fome  pains 
jn  this  matter  ;  for  unlefs  he  produces  the  de- 
manded inftance  of  one   episcopal  ordination, 
he  cannot,   with  any  tolerable  face,  in   time  to 
come,  afk  for  an  example  of  ordination  by  Pres- 
byters :  Nor  may  he  think  he  is  at  all  wrong- 
ed, if  we  give  no  credit  to    his  v/ord,   fhould  he 
hereafter  fay,  as  he  has  done,  (p.  63)  That  '  wc 
know,  by  the  bed  hiflcrical  evidence,  that  it  has 
been   the   universal   pra6tice  of  the  church, 
from   the    time    of  the    Apostles   to  the 
present  hour,  to  acknowledge  none  for 
Bishops,  wh^were  not  ©rdatned  by  other 
Bishops.'     And  for  his  encouragement  I  now 
publicly  allure  him,    that  I  will  receive  as  g9* 

nuim 


•APPEAL  DEFENDED.'        Sr 

nuine  any  inftance  he  may  be  able  to  bring  from 
the  certainly  /purious,  or  vaterpnJated^  epiftles  of 
Ignatius,  the  great  oracle  of  Epifcopalians. 

The  Do6lor  now  comes  to  confider  the  ej^- 
ample  of  the  W^aldenfes^  which  1  had  mentioned 
in  proof  of  ordination  by  Prelbyters.  And  he 
lays  here,  in  dire6t  oppofition  to  as  known  a  truth 
as  is  contained  in  hiftory,  '  That  the  JValdenfes 
were  Epifcopalians  •,  yea,  *  fuch  high- flyers  that 
they  claimed  an  uninterrupted  fuccefTion  in  a 
line  of  Biiliops  as  fuperior  to  Prefbyters.'  If  he 
had  affirmed  this  of  the  church  of  Scotlanc),  ic 
would  not  have  been  more  diftant  from  the  truth. 
No[hing  is  more  evident,  than  that,  among  the 
Wa'denfes,  long  before  they  had  that  name,  and 
from  the  twelfth  century  when  they  were  thus 
denominated,  ordination  was  performed  by  co- 
ordinate Failofs,  or  Prefbycers,  affembled  in  iy* 
nods  ;  as  may  be  feclh  in  the  account  of  the 
JValdenfes  and  AlhigenfeSy  publifhed  by  Paul 
J-'enin  of  Lyons,  under  the  head  of  difcipline^ 
Nay,  that  famous  Epifcopalian,  Dr.  Reignotds^ 
who  more  than  equalled  in  learning  either  Mof-- 
heim^ov  Dr.  Aliic^  perempu^rily  affirms,  in  his  leJ^ 
ter  to  Sir  Francis  Kncllsy  that  the  Waldeyifes  w^erc 
of  the  fame  opinion  with  Atrius  as  to  the  identi- 
ty of  the  order  of  Bifhops  and  Prefbyters,  The 
unknown  writer  of  the  anfwer  to  Mr.  Owen^  to 
v/hom  the  Dodfor  is  obliged  for  his  account  of 
the  Waldenfes,  indeed  fays,  '  They  did -affirm, 
that  they  had  la^Ovful  Bifhops,  and  a  lawful  un- 
interrupted fucccfficn  from  the  Apoftles  to  this 
day.' — But  we  all  know  the  equivocal  ufe  of  the 
name  Bifhops  ;  and  that  it  may  as  well  meaa 
ofHcers  in  the  church  of  the  fame  order  with 
Prefbyters,  as  of  a  fuperior  order.  In  the  latter 
(cnfe,  the  tValdcnJes  never  pretended  to  have 


ti  REPLY  TO    THE, 

Bijheps^  or  ^  fucceffion  of  them  from  the  Apoftles,' 
as  is  evident  from  the  general  ftrain  of  ccclcfi- 
aftical  hiftory  ;•  in  the  former,  they  might  pof- 
fibly  affirm  this.  It  is  mod  probable  this  author, 
or  the  writer  he  quotes  from,  confounded  the 
Waldenfes  with  the  Bohemians  \  though  k  is  not: 
true,  even  in  this  view,  that  the  Bifhops^  and  (uc- 
cejfion  fpoken  of,  would  be  pleafing  to  the  Doc- 
tor. For  the  epifcopacy  of  the  Bohemian  church 
was  not  fuch  an  one  as  he  is  a  ftickler  for.  Says 
the  learned  Comenius^  in*  his  rano  difciplinae  fra* 
trum  Bohemorum,  (p.  19,  20.)  '  It  is  true,  the 
Bohemians  have  certain  Bifhops,  or  fuperinten- 
dants,  who  arc  conlpicuous  for  ago  andgifts,  and 
chofen  by  fuffragcs  of  ail  the  minifters  for  the 
keeping  •of  order,  and  to  fee  that  all  the  reft 
do  their  office,  ^our,  or  fi\/e,  oi^fix  fuch  have 
they,  as  need  requires;  and  each  of  thefe  has 
his  diocefs.  But  then  the  dignity  of  thefe,  be- 
yond the  other  minifters,  is  not  founded  in  the 
prerogative  of  honours  and  revenues,'  but  in 
that  of  labors  and  cares  4Deyond  others.  Accor- 
ding to  the  canons  of  the  ApolUes,  a  Prefbyttr 
and  Bifhop  are  one  and  the  fame  thing  ;  only 
a  Bifhop  among  them  fignifies  an  infpedor,  or 
fuperintendant  :  And  theiefore  theBifhops  of  the 
unity  are  in  equal  honour  among  thcmiclves,  ex- 
cept that  one  of  them  prefides  for  the  fake  of 
order.* — Buoil  mult  not  enlarge  here.  1  may 
have   faid    too  much    already. 

The  Dodtor  concludes  this  fedion  with  a  few 
feeble  attempts  to  defend  fome  part  of  what  he 
had  faid  upon  the  fubjcft  of  confirmation.  Three 
texts  he  brought  to  view,  in  his  appeal,  in  fup- 
port  cf  this  rite  of  the  church  of  England.  I 
was  particular  in  taking  notice  of  each  of  them. 
,To  ihc  firft   and  third  of  ihefc  texts  he  has  not 

feen 


•APPEAL  defended;        Z3 

fecnfit,  no  doubt  for  a  very  good  reafon,  to  fay  a 
word.     In   anlwer  to  the  fecond,   he  complains 
of  being  '  accufcd  of  unfairly  quoting  a  text  of 
fcripturc  ;  a  crime  (fays  he)  which  I  hold  in   ab- 
horrence-—I    am  forry  Dr.   Chauncy  could  think 
me   capable   of  committing   fuch  a    flagrant  aft 
of  impiecy.'     I  have  carefully  looked  over  what 
he    has  ofic^red    to  exculpate  himfelf  from    the 
crime,  he  fays,  I  had  charged   him  with  ;    and 
fliall  be  glad;if  the  impartialPubilc  find  reafon  to 
be  fatisfied,  '  that  he  did  not  fupprefs  the  latter 
part  of  a  text,  becaufe  if  he  had  given  the  whole, 
it- would  have  been  at  once  vifible  to  the  reader, 
that  it   would  have   been   nothing  to  his  pur-? 
pofe.     I  will  not  fay  a  word  to  weaken  the  effort 
he  has  made  to  clear  up  his   charadler  in  this 
point  ;  but  willingly  fuffer  it  to  be  fecn  in   its 
full  force. 

If  the  reader  fhall  think  it  worth  while  to 
turn  to  the  anfwer  I  was  particular;. in  making 
to  the  two  objedions  againft  -covfirmation,  the 
Do£lor  endeavo.ired,  in  his  appeal,  to  remove 
out  of  the  way,  he  may,  perhaps,  be  let  into  the 
true  reafon  why  he  paflTed  over  what  was  there 
Oifered  in  total  filence. 

I  CONCLUDED   what  I  had  to  fay,  on  the  rite 
of  csnfirmaiior^mth  an  extrad  from  the  diflenting 
Gentleman   again  (I    Mr.    PVhite,      The    Do6lor 
has  thought  itfufficienc  to  give  i]%,    in    anfwer, 
the  reply  of  Mr.  JVbite.     And  I  (hall  think  it  fuf- 
iicien.t,  in  return,  only  to  beg  the  reader  to  com- 
pare this  reply  of  Mr.    White^  with  my  exxraffe 
from  the  diffcnting  Gentleman  ;  and  if  he  can 
bring  himlelf  to  think  it  worthy  of  the  name  oif 
a  reply,  let  him  repair  to  what  this  famfe  dififent- 
ing    Gentleman  has  faid  in  anfwer    [o  it,   in  his 
fiith  fcction    ;    more  efpeciaily  that  part  of  it 

^      •'  which 


84^  REPLY    TO   T  HE,  &c. 

•which  Is  contained  in  p.  172,  173.  He  will  then 
need  nothing  iurther  to  convince  him,  anlefs  he 
is  in  a  difpoficion  not  to  believe  that   the   fun 
fliines, though  he  beholds  it  in  its  meridian  luftre. 
It  only  remains   here   to  affure   the  Doilor, 
in  acknowledgment  for  his  advice,  that  I  have  not 
the  opinion  of  Mr.  ^i?//^  that  he  has;  efteem* 
ing  him  no  more  than  a  child  in  companfon  with 
yix.  'lowgood  '-    And  this,  I  believe,  is  the  real 
fentimentof  all,  in  the  impartral  world,  who  have 
had  opportunity  to  read  their  performances.     As 
toDr.  6r^jy,  he  wasu  .doubtedly  an  inferior  man, 
in    ail  relpeds,  to  Mr.  Pierce  ;  and  particular- 
ly appears  to  be  fo  in  his  controverfy  with  him. 


Repl>: 


Reply  to  Dn  Chandler's 
Third,  Fourth,  Fifth,  Sixth 
and  Seventh  Sections. 


THESE  Se6lions,  in  the  appeal,  were  prin- 
cipally contrived  to  give  opportunity  for 
a  acclamatdry  application  to  the  paflions  ^  and 
they  were  abundantly  employed  to  this  purpofe. 
Nothing  that  could  be  thought  of,  or  hyperbo- 
lically  exprcffed,  was  wanting  in  order  to  im- 
prefs  the  reader*s  mind  wich  a  deep  fenfe  of  thac 
wretched,  deplorable,  opprelTed,  perfecuted,  pe- 
rilhing  condition,  the  poor  church  of  England 
in  America  was  unhappily  reduced  to,  through 
the  want  of  Bifhops  in  this  part  of  the  world. 
Thefe  topics  of  harangue,  enlarged  on  in  the  ap- 
peal, were  pariicularly  replyed  to  in  the  anfwer 
to  it.  The  Dodlor  has  faid  little  ihai  is  new  or 
material  in  '  the  defence'  he  has  made.  It  would 
therefore  be  a  needlefs  tryal  of  the  reader's  pa- 
tience to  detain  him  here  i  Plowever,  he  will,  I 
truft,  bear  with  me  while  I  take  fome  brief  no- 
tice of  a  few  things,  wherein  he  has  grofsly  fail- 
ed in  hU  reafoning,  or  that  fairnefs  with  which 
he  fhould  have  rcprefented  fa^s. 

I  HAD  feen  fit  to  make  two  previous  remarks; 

J'he  firll  occafioned  by  his  faying,  '  none  buc 

1^  Bifhops 


86  REPLY  TO  THE 

Bifiiops  have  a  right  to  govern  the  church,  was 
to  t'lis  purpofe,  '  That  it  was  diffic  ilr,  or  rather     , 
impoffible,to  conceive  how  it  fliould  be  believed, 
that   none  but  Bifliops  have  a  right  to  govern 
the  church,  while  it  is  believed,  at  the  farne  time, 
that  the  King  h  the  fupremc   Governor  ot  it, 
according  to  the  article  ^the  Dodor]  referred 
to,  which  declares  that  he  hath  the  chief  pow- 
er, the  CHIEF   government  in  all  ecclefiafti- 
cal  caufes.' — The  only  reply   is,  *'This  matter 
has  already,  been    placed  in  lb  full  and  clear  a 
light,  that  to  enlarge  upon  jt  would  be  paying 
bu't  an  ill    complimetit,  to  the   reader's   iinder- 
ftanding.'     i  may   rather  with   exaft  truth,  fay p 
it  v/ould  ,be  an  affront  to  Ifis  undvrftanding  to 
fuppof;^,  that  hd  eould  imaging*  what  had   been 
faid,   in   p.  50  and  a  few  pages  onwards,  relative 
to  the  Kkig's  (uprcmacy,  fhould  have  the  lead 
tendency   to  remove-away   this  difficulty,  which 
can  be  no  otherwife  done,  than  by  making  both 
parts  of  a  mod   apparent  contradidlion  true.     It 
may  be  worthy  of  the  reader's  notice  here,  1  had 
laid,  from  the  feveral  afts  of  Parliament,  relative 
to  the  King's  fa premacy,  that  he  is  veiled  with 
ALL  POWER  to  exercife  all  manner  of  cccle- 
fiaftical  iurirdi(5tion,  'and  that    Arch  Bifnops,  Bi- 
ihops,  and    all  other  ecclefiaftical  perfons,  have 
NO  MANNER  of  jurirdi6lion  eccleflaifical  but   by 
AND  under  the  King's  Majesty,  who  hath 
full  power  and  authority  to  hear  and  determine 
all  manner  of  causes  ecclesiastical.    To 
this    the   Dodor  has    not  thought  fir   to  fay   a 
word.     I  hid  alfo    been  particular  in  obferving, 
*  That    whatever    autHonty   the   Clergy  of  the 
church  of  England,  whether  fuperior  or  inferior, 
are  ve (led  with,it  is,  in  all  its  branches, reftrained^ 
by  the   state,  within  certain  bounds,  beyond 

'^  which 


•APPEAL  DEFEN£)ED.*         ij 

which  they  have  no  authority  :  Infomuch,  that 
all  the  Clergy  of  the  Kingdom,  with  the  Bifhops 
at  their  head,  have  no  conlt.tutional  ri^ht  to 
make  the  lead  deviation.'.  To  all  this,  and 
much  more  of  the  like  import,  the  Dodtor  has 
made  no  other  anfwer,  than  by  referring  us  to 
what  he  had  faid  in  fonie  prcceeding  pages  con- 
cerning the  King's  fupremacy,  which  is  faying 
nothing,  becaufe  nothing  is  there  attempted  to 
be  faid  in  reply  to  thefe  difficulties.  It  will,  I 
am  apt  to  think,  be  at  once  obvious  to  the  rea- 
der, why  he  did  not  chufe  to  point  out  to  us,  how 
NONE  BUT  Bishops  have  a  right  to  govern  the 
church,  when  they. are  fo  far  from  being  her 
ONLY  Governors,  that  they  are  nothing  more 
Chan  SUBORDINATE  rulers,  and  can  do  nothing 
in  the  church  but  accordins:  to  the  authori- 
tative  prescriptions  of  the  King  and  hu 
Jr'arliamcnt,  ,  '   - 

The  other  remark,  as  the  Do6lor  has  repre- 
fentcd  it,  '  relates  to  the  difference  betwiiiC  the 
complaint  as  made  at  the  head  of  this  feftion,  and 
its  appearance  in  the  explanation  that  follows.* 
The  reader  here  meets  with^  notable -initancc 
of  his  critical  ju {lice,  and  candid  fairnef^,  in  fo 
quoting  my  words  as  to  find  occafion.to  remark 
upon  them.  For  I  had,  in  exprefs  terms,  made 
the  difference  between  the  complaint,  and  its 
after -vindication,  to  confift,  not  meeriy,  or  only, 
in  what  was  faid  '  at  the  head  of  this  fedion  •/ 
but  IN  that  paragraph,  some  vv^ords  of 
WHICH  [namely  thefe,  none  but  Bijhops  have  a 
right  to  govern  the  church}  v/e  have  been 
considering.  This  elTential  part  of  the  re- 
marked difference  the  Dodor  has  been  pleafed 
intirely  to  leave  out  in  quoting  my  words  ;  and 
linlelis  he  had   been  thus  unfair,  there   would 

have 


88  REPLY  TO  THE 

have  been  no  propriety  or  pertinency  in  t^e  re- 
ply he  has  made  to  thfem  :  It  is  wholly  ground- 
ed on  his  unaccountably  leaving  that  out,  which 
he  ought  to  have  put  in.  He  owns  indeed,  that 
he  had  faid,  (ap  p.  27)  '  The  Ati)>rican  chur- 
ches, while  without  Biihops,  muft  be  without 
government  -,'  upon  which  he  fays,  '  If  he  [Dr. 
Chauncyl  had  this  general  expreffion  in  his  view' 
he  did  wrong  in  faying  it  was  at  ihe  head  of  the 
lection.'  He  is  here  chargeable  with  inexcufable 
inattention,  not  to  fay  any  thii.g  worfe.  How 
oih'jrwife  CO  jld  he  have  made  the  fuppofiiion, 
*  if  he  had  this  general  expreffion  in  view,  ? 
'^'hcn/.n  pointing  out  the  difference  between  the 
complaint,  and  its  vincication,it  was  ,in  the  mofl: 
plain  language,  direc'tly  held  out  to  view  ?  His 
inlinuating,  that  '  I  did  wrong  in  faying  it  was 
at  the  head  of  the  fedion^'  could  be  intended 
only  to  make  way  fbr  rhe  fiogularly  beautiful 
piece  cf  wit  that  follows,  '  Few  of  his  readers, 
1  be!i.::vc",  won'd  evtJ^  think  cf  looking  for  the 
head  of  a  thing  in  the  i-riddle  of  i:.'  One  would 
naturally  luppcfe,  from  fo  (Iriking  a  flight- of 
fancy,  that  "  this  general  expreiTion'  was  to  be 
found  in  the  middle  of  xht  fedion  ;  whereas,  it 
is  the  very  fiji  thing,  atter  what  is  briefly  faid 
by  way  of  introduction,  that  we  meet  with.  It 
13  not  eaiy'  to  conceive,  how  the  Dcdlor  cam^ 
to  ca:l  the  head  cf  a  thing  its  'middle  •,  and  upon 
a  ntifrepref^cntation  too,  which  any  common 
reader  ♦night  redify  upon  ocuiar  inlpedion. 

I'Ie  goes  on  to  fay,  with  reference  to  this  ge- 
neral propofition,  without  Bifhops  the  church 
of  England  in  America  mufl  be  without  go- 
vernment, '  I  CO  A  notice,that  it  is  to  be  undcr- 
flood  in  a  qualified  fenfe  :  But  furely  there  caa 
he  no  inconiiltcncy  in  this.    It  is  very  commoR, 

and 


^APPEAL  DEFENDED/       t^ 

and  agreeable  to  ftrift  method,  firft  to  lay  down 
a  general  propofition,  and  then  to  mark  out  tho 
exceptions  and  limitations  with  which  it  is  to  b© 
underftood.'     It  is   neither  common,   nor  con- 
fident with  ftri6t  method  or  good  fcnfe,  to  limit 
a  propofition  that  is   not  capable  of  limitation. 
The  Dodor's   propofition  is  ot  ihis  kind.     Can 
there  be  government  with  cxceprions  and  limi* 
tations,  when  all  right  to  exercile  government 
is  denied,  and  for  want   of  this  right  there  is 
'Wrctchednefs  and  milcry  ?  The  ccmpJaini  there- 
fore (hould  not  have  been  in  ablolute  terms,when 
a  limited  mirigated  meaning  only  was  intended. 
This  is    whai  I  aimed  to  fhow  in  my  remark^ 
and  principally  with  a  view  to  give    particular 
diftinft  notice  to  the  reader,    that  it  was  in  a 
*  qualified  limited  fenfe  only,'  that  I  was  called 
to  confider  this  complaint       It  was  accordingly 
in  this  qualified   fcnfe  that  I  did  confider  it  up- 
on the    head  of  ordination  as  well  SLt  government^ 
and  in  perfe<^t  conformity  to  the  fcnfe  in  whick 
the  Doctor  himfclf  endeavoured  to  vindicate  his 
own  complaint.      If  the  reader  will  only  carry 
thit   in   his    mind,  when     he   reads   what     he 
has  faid   (p   loi,  iOz)  he  will  at  once  perceive, 
that  the  whole  of  it  is  a  meet  vain  (hew,  altoge- 
ther unworthy    of  any   one   who   pretends   to 
reafon  fairly.     We  fliall  examine  what  is  hero 
oiferr.iI. 

Says  he,  *  As  to  ordination,  the  general  pro- 
pofition is  true  without  any  exception.^  For 
without  Bilhops,  upon  the  principles  of  the 
church  of  England,  there  cannot  be  ordinati- 
on in  a  fingle  inftance.*  And  what  then  ? 
Who  eYcr  faid  there  could  be  an  inftance  of  cpif- 
f  opal  ordination  Without  a  Bilhop  I  He  is  here 
M  beating 


^f  REPLY    TO  THE 

bearing  the  air,  having  no  one  living  to  confnd 
tvith.     He   goes   on,  *  The  Dodtor  [Chauncyl 
diftinguilhes  ;  no  ordination^   and  ordination  with 
inconvenience  and  charge^  are  quite  different  things^ 
Who  in   his  fenfes  ever  thought,  or  iaiJ  other- 
vife  ?  Inftead  of  '  laboring  under  a  great  con- 
fufion  of  ideas,'  my  antagorifl  n.ufi:  have  no  ideas 
but  what  are  different  from  the  ideas  of  all  other 
perfons,   if  he  can  difpute  this.     But,  fays  he, 
*  The  pofition  which  he  controverts  is  this,  that 
there  can  be   no  ordination  in  America,  without 
Biflieps  in  America.'      It  he  here  means,  that  I 
difpute    whether    epifcopal    ordination   can    be 
obtained    by   Americans,  unlcfs   there    are  Bi- 
fhops  in  America  ;  it  is    neither  true,  nor  con- 
fident with  his  own  vindication  of  his  own  com- 
plaint ;  or  with  my  anfwcr  to  it.      If  the  mran- 
ing  is,   that  I  controvert    this  pofition,   that   no 
ordination  can  be  performed  by  Bifhops  in  /ime- 
rica,  unlcfs  there  are  Bifhops   here,  he  is  chal- 
lenged to  point  put  the  place  in  which  I  difpute 
this,  or  was   called  upon  by  him  to  do   fo  :  If 
he  cannot,  he    mull  be  looked   upon   as   ridi« 
culing  himfelf,  by  endeavouring  to  bring  me  in 
difputing  as  felf-cvident  a  truth,  as  that  two  and 
two  make  four.       He  goes  on,  *  In  oppofition 
to  which  [the  pofition,    there  can   be  no  ordina- 
tion in  America  without  Bifhops  in  America]  he 
argncs,  that  we  may  have  ordinations  in  America 
vjtth  inconvenience  and  charge      But  how  can  we, 
without  Bifhops,  have  ordination   in  America  I 
Why,  fays  my  very  logical  opponent,  by  having 
them  in  England.*     The  Do<i;tor  is  here  illogical- 
ly  infcnfiblc.thathc  is  fncering  at  himfelf.  For  it 
was  HE  that  Ipake  of  inconvenience,  danger^  and 
chargt^xn  having  c-dinat'ons  m    mertca  by  having 
them  luEnglani.  For  thcfc  arc  the  confidcrations, 

and 


-r>  •■* 


•APPEAL  DEFENDED.'       jf 

and  the  only  ones,  in  the  virtue  of  which  he 
endeavours  to  lupport  hiS  complainc  upon  the 
head  of  erdinaiion.  If  therefore  there  is  any 
thmg  ridiculous  in  faying,  *  We  may  have  or- 
dinations in  America  by  having  them  in  En- 
gland,' he  only  muft  bear  the  ridicule  -,  for  he. 
is  the  only  perfon  that  made  this  a  matter  of 
complaint  ;  and  he  is  HKire  clamwous  upon  this 
fuppofed  grievance  than  aty  other. 

/\s  he  never  once  complained,  that  cpifc@pal 
ordination  could  not  be  obtained  ^  but  ground- 
ed his  con  plain  SOLELY  ujoi  the  inconveni^ 
gnce,  Jauj^er,  and  expcnce  of  being  obliged  lo  go 
to  England  for  it,  there  being  no  Bifhop  in 
America,  this  only  I  was  called  to  confider,  and 
this  only  I  did  confider.  The  illuftration  iherc- 
fore  he  has  given  us  ^Tom^ printing prefsmHoUand 
or  Pruffiay  can  Itrvc  no  purpofs  unkfi  to  {how, 
chat  he  did  notunderftand  his  own  argument. 

I  shall  not  ihifik  it  improper  vq  add   here,' 
nocwithftanding  the  Do6lor,  and  a   few  others 
have  made  a  mighty   noife  about  '  having  ordi- 
nations in  America  by  having  them  m  England,' 
and  at  a  vaft  cxpence,  and   the   hazard  of  life, 
there  being  no  other   way  in  which  holy  orders' 
can  be  epifcopally  conferred  on  this  fide   the 
Atlantic  ;    1  fay,  notwithftanding   this   mighty 
outcry,  there  are  at  leaft  two  Bifhops  now  rea- 
ding in  the  Britifh  America,  one  in  the  north, 
the  other  in   the  fouth  part  of  it,  from  either  of 
which  ic  is  reafonable  to  think,  the  epifcopal  of* 
fice  might  be   conveyed,  wi  h  incontelhole  vali- 
dity,  to  an   epiicopal  Prefbyter  i  which  would, 
at  once,  put  an  end  to  all  further  complaint  of 
expcnce  and   hazard  in   *  going  to  England  to 
have  ordination  in    \merica.' 

The  Dottor  will  not  efteem  it  an  obje(5lion  of 
any  weight  aga'nfl;  derivinpt  the  eoifcopal  office 

from 


pt  REPLY  TO  THE 

from  the  Canadian  Bifliop,  bccaufe  he  is  a  ?•- 
prsH  one.  For  he  has  cxprefsly  aflured  us> 
(p.  7t))  *  That  he  knows  of  no  rc^h;n  why  or- 
3PEfts  derived  trotp  the  Papists  fhould,  on  .hat 
account,  be  invalid,  any  more  than  arguments 
derived  from  ihem  (hould  be  \o '  And  he  knows 
alio,  for  he  has  declared  it,  '  1  hat  the  church 
«[  Rome,  though  an  old  harlot,  even  in  the 
opinion  of  the  church  of  England,  may  ytt  bring 
forth  children,  harlot  as  fhe  is,  as  well  as  an  ho- 
ricft  and  virtuous  mairon,  and  fometime^  chil-^ 
dren  beticrthan  their  parent '  As  a  pc  pish  Bi- 
fhop  is,  by  an  extraordinary  ad  of  Brinlh  fa- 
vor, permitted  to  refide,  and  cx^rt  his  i  fficial 
powt-r,  in  Canada,  now  in  fubjc6lion  toEngland  % 
It  cannot  eafily  be  fuppcfed,  that  be  would  be 
fo  ungrateful  as  to  refufc  to  comply  with  fo  rea- 
fonabie  a  requtft  as  this  of  yefting  an  Ame- 
rican Prtfbyter  with  the  epifcopaf  order.  Or 
if  he  fliould  ungeneroufly  retufe  to  d^/th!S,there 
is  no  good  realon  to  think,  but  thai:  the  fou- 
thcrn  Bifhop  would  willingly  perform  lo  chiif^ 
tian  a  deed  of  kmdnels.  It  is  true,  he  is  a  Bi- 
fhop according  to  the  Moravian  mode  ;  f  ut  he 
is  notwirhftanding  vefted  with  epilcopal  pow- 
ers, as  handed  to  him  in  a  dlrcdl  line  from  the 
Apoftlcs.  It  is  true  likewifc,  he  can  convey  no 
human  dignny,  temporality,  or  worldly  appen- 
dage J  but  this  can  be  no  difficulty,  as  purely 
SPIRITUAL  powtro  are  the  ONLYones  that  arc 
van:ed,  or  fo  mlich  as  dcfired  ;  f  r  thrle  he 
can  communicate  as  well  as  -ny  Bifliop  in  En- 
gknd  It  rray  rcafonably,  and  will  be  (irong- 
ly  'u^pijiUed,  f  me  thing  more  than  that  which 
is  PURiLY  SPIRITUAL  is  hapkercd  after,  if  the 
poor  chur<  h  A  England  in  the  Colonies,  is  luf- 
fcrcd  lO  contmuc  m  a  *  lamentably    diftreffed 

perifliing 


«APPE  AL  DEFENDED/       gs 

pcrifliing  condition'  for  want  of  a  Bifliop,  when 
fhe  may  have  one,  without  any  hazard  of  life, 
and  at  a  fmall  expencc  of  pocket,  by  only  re- 
pairing to  an  'MERiCAN  Bjfh'p.  Surely,  the 
cry  of  diftrcfs  and  m-fery,  for  want  of  a  pure- 
ly SPIRITUAL  B'fliop  will  be  difregarded,  as  it 
ought  to  be,  until  it  is  made  evident,  that  due 
application  has  been  made  to  one  or  other  of 
the  continental  Bifti  )ps,  and  that  they  have  re- 
fufed  to  confecrate  a  BiOjop  for  -"he  Colonies, 
or  to  ordain  Candidates  for  holy  orders.  If  the 
epifcopalClergy  had  been  as  zealous  in  their  appli- 
cations to  ihe  Bifhops  in  America,  as  they  have 
been  elfe where,  they  might,  without' all  doubt, 
have  had  one  from  among  themfelves  veiled 
with  the  epifcopal  powers  of  oidinacion  and  go- 
vernment long  befo  e  now. 

The  DodlDr,  in  his  '  appeal,  p,  34,  had  com- 
plained of  the  expence  of  a  voyage  .0  England 
for  ordinatio.)  ;  to  wh'cn  the  reply  was  made 
that  is  contained  m  p.  82  of  the  '  appeal  an- 
fy/cred.*  f  his  reply,  hcwcver  candid  andjuft, 
gave  occasion  to  my  being  very  fcurriioufly 
treated  in  one  of  the  New- York  periodical  pa- 
pers :  And  Dr.  Chandler  himlelf,  m  his'  ap- 
peal defended,'  has  remarked  upon  it  in  a  man- 
ner much  below  the  gentleman,  not  to  fay  the 
chriftian  divine.  The  reader  will  bear  with 
me,  while  I  fet  this  matter  in  a  clear  and  full 
point  of  light. 

It  was  faid,  in  the  *  appeal,' p.  54,  ^5,  in 
order  to  reprefent  the  difadvantage  of  being 
obliged  to  go  to  England  for  orders,  *  That 
the  expence  of  this  voyage  cannot  be  reckoned 
at  lefs,  upon  an  average,  than  one  hundred 
pounds  fterling  to  each  pcrfon,  lo  men  of 
fortune  this  is  an  inconfidcrablc  fum  j  but  men 

of 


j4^  RfePLYTOTHE 

of  fortune  mud  not  beexpe6le  J  to  dtTOte  tlicm* 
felvcfs    ro  r ae  iervicc  ot  the  church  in  America, 
when    t..e  profp«-ct    is  fo  dhCJura^ingT  and   fo 
many  dilagreeable  circumftances    are  known   to 
at  ten  I  ic.       T;ie  C;ipcuce  rruft  iiiC  rfo-e  gene- 
rally fall  upoa   lucn,  a^  having    alrca  y  expend- 
ed the   ^fv  atr  t  pare   of  th- ir  putance    »n    their 
education,  \\\\  fi  ;d  it  extrerncly  hard  co  raife   a 
fu.ii  lufficiem  t  )r   the  purpolc  *     Thefc  are   the 
Doctor's   words,   and  rt.e  whole  of   ihem.       In 
reply  hereto   it  WaS  laid,  '  appeal   anlwcred,   p, 
82,  *  Anorh  r  x^^^i'on   (that  is,   of  the  difadvan- 
tage  ?!  tending  ihr  aiTair  of  ordination]  is,  the 
e^peace  of  the  voya^^e,  which  cannor    be  reck- 
oned at  Jef.,  upon  an  average,  than  oriC  hundred 
pounds   (I  fling   to  each  perlbn.'     And   this    is 
aggravated   by    rthc  confiderat  on  *  that  the   ex- 
perc:'   muft  generally   fall    upon  fuch,  as,    hav- 
ing a  rrady  expended  the  greateft   part  of  their 
pitance  in    hrir  education,  w.ll  find  ic  extreme- 
ly hard  to  raile  a  fufficient  fura  for  the  purpofe.* 
1  candidly   Tuppoie  the  Do6tor  had   never  feen, 
or,  if  he  had,  did  nor   remember,  at  the  tim«  of 
writing  the  account  of  the  Society,  publifhcd  in 
1706,   in   which  they  fay,   (p.  74)*   All  young 
ftudents  in  thofe   parts  (meaning  the  Colonies^ 
who  defire  epifcopal  ordination,  are  invited  into 
England  •,  and  their  expences  in  coming  and 
returning  are  to   be  detrayed   by   the   Society.* 
According  to  this  invitation  there  is  no  hardfhip, 
as  to  the  article  of  '  expenc  c*  that  can  be  com- 
plained of.  unlefs   abfurdiy,   but  by  the   Society 
themfelves  •,    and   they   can  have    no  juft  rea- 
fon  for  complaint,  as  the  money  they  expend  in 
this  way  is  as  properly  beftowt-d,  as  in  the  fup« 
port  of  the  mifTionaries  themfelves.'     This,  ver- 
Vatim,  IS  what  I  faid,  and  ail  that  1  faid.     Who 

could 


•APPEAL  DEFENDED.'         55 

could  have  imagined,  that  what  is  here  offer- 
ed, in  fo  candid  a  manner,  without  lo   muc^«  as 
m  harfh  or  provoking   wo^d,    fhoul  i  have  b  en 
made  an  handle  for  the   bafe  and   injuri'  u-    re- 
fiedtions  that  have  been  caft  upon  me  !— But  let 
us  hear  what  the  Do6lor  has  faivl,  in  his  '  ap- 
peal   defended/       Having    owned,    (p.    izw) 
*  That  I  very  candidly  fuppofed  he   nad    never 
feen,  or,  if  he  had,  did  not  remember,  at  the  time 
of  writing,  the  account  of  ihe  Society,  publiihed 
in  1706  ; — he  goes  on  to  argue,   '  The  com- 
plaint made  in  the  '  appeal*  is,  that  the  voyage 
is  expenftve  ;  the  anfwer  by  Dr.  Cbauncy  is  ma- 
nifeHly  contrived  to  excite  the  idea,  that  it  is  not 
cxpenfivc.*     It  is  really  unaccountable  be  fhould 
be  able  to  move  his  pen  to  write  thus,  wh^n  he 
could  not  but  know,  if  in  f'-emg  he  would  fee, 
that  my  anfwer,  in  the  whole  of  it^  was  ground- 
ed    upon    the    fuppofition    that    the    voyage 
was    attended    with   expence    ;    nor  is  there   a 
word   m  it,  from    whence  it   can  be   inferred, 
that   I   did    not    think    this    to    be    a    certain 
truth.       He    proceeds,    *   The   complaint   fays, 
the  expence,   upon  an  average,   is  an  hundred 
pounis  ftcrhn.q:  to  each  perfon  *,    he  anfwer  leads 
the  reader  to  brhcvc,    that  it  is  not  a  farthing.* 
He  (hould   rather  have  faid,  it  leads  the  reader 
to   believe,   that  it   would   not  be  a  farthing,  if 
tiie   Society  defrayed   the   charge  conformably 
to  the  promife  they  publifhed  for  the  encourage- 
ment of  Colony-ftudents  10  go  to  England  for 
orders.      And,  as  they  have  never  revokt  d  this 
promife    that    we   non-cpifcopaLans  know  of, 
(for  fuch  revokation  is  no  where  contained,  that 
we  can  find,  in   the  publifhed   accounts  of  their 
proceedings)   we  ought,  in  honor  to  them,  to 
fuppofc,  that  they,  and  not  the  ftudents  they 

have 


p6  REPLY  TO    THE, 

have  invited  into  England,  are  at  the  cxpence 
of  the  voyage^   unl^fsit  is  othcrwile  defrayed. 
He  lays  yet  further,  '  But   this  is  not  the   worft 
of  it  •,  the  anfwer  appears  to  me  to  be  artfully 
calculated    t^  leaJ    the    reader  alfo   to  believe 
lometliing  furrhtr-^namely,   that  concerning  a 
plain  matfer    of  tad,  with  regard  to  which   it  is 
inipoflible    any   Miffionary    can   be   miftaken,  I 
publifhed   to    the  world   an  abfolutc,  wilful  fal- 
lliood  \    a  fairhood,  which    was   known   to  be 
fuch,  not  only  by  every  Miflionary  on  the  Con- 
tinent,  but    by  every  member  of  the   Society 
both   here  and   at  home,    and  by   every    Bifliop 
in  the  Kingdom.       So  that  I  fear  the  Doftor 
really  intended  to  lead  his  readers  to  believe  me 
to  have  been  in  this   matter,    both  a  notorious 
liar,   and    abominably    itupid.      I  have   freely 
mentioned  what   1  ilroni.dy  lufpedl,   and  what  I 
know  to  be  fufpeftrd  by   many  others.     If  he 
can  exculpate    himfclf,   I  think  it  greatly  con- 
cerns him  to  do  it  :  Or  if  any  of  his  friends  can 
clear  him,  it  is  in  their  power  to  do  him  a  molt 
ciTential  fervice.       Nothing  Icfs,  in  my  opinion, 
can    excufe  him  to  the  world,  and  to  his  own 
confcience,   than  prop  r  evidence  that  he  him- 
fclf believes,  and  has  reafon  for  believing,  that 
I  have  adually  been  gudty   of  fuch    bafe  and 
abfurd   condudt,   as  his  infinuations   manifeftly 
imply  ' — It  mull,  I  Ihould  think,  appear  to  the 
reader,  that  the  Dodor,  inftead  of  being  *  very 
candid,'  has  difcovered  a  total  want  of  candor  in 
what  he   has  here  faid.     He  exprcfsly  declares, 
*That  I  had  very  candidly  fuppofedjhe  had  not  feen, 
or  did  not  remember,  the  Society's  engagement 
in  i;o6  ;    and  yet,  in  diredt  contradidtion  to 
this   acknowlcdgL-d    candor,  he  would  lead  the 
reader  to  think,  that  it  was  my  intention   to 

rcprefcnc 


•APPEAL  DEFENDED/       57 

reprefent  him  as  an  abominably  flupid  liar.  It 
%vas  in  truth  my  real  clefign,  explicitly  as  well 
as  candidly  fignificd,  to  guard  him  againll  en- 
tertaining any  fuch  thought.  What  other 
imaginable  end  could  I  have  had  in  view  ?  I 
fhould  have  aded  the  part,  not  of  an  '  art- 
ful calculator,'  but  cf  a  U-eak  filly  perfon, 
to  have  made  the  fuppofnion,  the  Dodtcr 
himfclf  calls  a  '  very  candid  one,'  if  it  had 
been  my  intention  to  make  the  reader  believe 
he  was  '  a  notorious  liar,'  as  having  piiblifned  a 
knov/n  v/ilful  falfliood.  What  fhould  lead  him 
*  (Irongly  to  fufped'  this  was  my  dciign,  I  am 
not  able  to  conjedture,  unlefs  he  fck  within 
himfelf  a  confcioufne^s  of  guilt  in  this  raattcr  ; 
which  might  be  the  Cafe.  For  though  I  neither 
faid,  nor  intended  to  fay  ic  before,  Ifay  it  now  in 
plain  words,  that  he  did  not  declare  the  truth, how- 
ever '  impoffibleic  was  that  anyMiffionary  iliould 
miftake  in  fo  plain  a  mattercf  fad,' if  he  intend* 
ed  to  make  his  readi^rs  believe,  agreeably  to  the 
evident  import  of  his  words,  ^  That  the  expcnce 
of  the  voyage  to  England  for  orders,  v/as,  to 
each  perfon,'  out  of  his  own  pocket,  withouc 
exception,  'one  hundred  pounds  ileriing.'  I  am 
fere  he  did  not  know  this  to  be  true,  becaufe  I 
know  it  fo  be  falle  :  Nor  does  any  Miffionary 
on  the  Continent  know  it  to  be  true,  becaule 
the  confciences  of  fome  of  them  will  tell  them 
to  their  faces,  that  pious  donations  have  wholly, 
or  in  great  parr,  defrayed  the  expence  of  their 
going  home  for  holy  orders.  Itis^.lndeed  com- 
mon in  thefe  parts,  however  it  may  be  where 
the  Dodlor  refides,  for  candidates  to  be  much 
aiTilled  in  their  voyage  :  I  believe  there  are 
thofe,  who  have  croiTed  the  Atlantic  for  ordi- 
nation, wichQUt  being  at  ajiy  epxence  of  their 
"    ~  ^  ""      N  own.' 


^i!  REPLY    TO    T  HE 

own.  It  does  not  therefore  belong  to  me,  but 
to  the  Dodlor,  to  '  exculpate  hiniklf.'  or  to  geC 
feme  friend  to  do  it  for  him  :  Nor  otherwife 
can  he  '  excufe  himfelf  to  the  world,  or  his 
own  confcience,'  for  what  he  has  here  publifh- 
cd  that  is  not  agreeable  to  truth.  How  far  he 
might  do  this  '  wiifuliy,'  or  '  ftupidly'  or  '  no- 
torioiilly,'  or  '  abominably,'  is  beft  known  to 
himlelf  •,  though  1  am  fo  candid  as  to  think, 
that  he  did  it  rather  through  want  of  due  con- 
fideration,  v/hich  is  a  fault  he  is  too  apt  to  be 
betrayed  into. 

Ke  has  been  pleafed,  in  a  note,  at  the  bottom 
of  p.  125,  to  infcrt  the  following  words,  '  The 
author  of  a  fMiticus  letter  from  a  member  of  the 
Society,  which  has  been  publiflied  in  one  of  the 
New-York  papers  has  endeavoured  to  vindicate 
Do6lor  Chauncy  from  the  charges  of  falfnood 
and  iniincerity,  which  had  been  brought  againft 
him  [in,  another  of  thefe  papers]  on  account  of 
his  coDdu(5l  in  this  affair.  Bur,  unlefs  he  fhould 
have  the  good  luck  to  meet  with  an  abler  and 
fairer  advocate,  his  reputation  mud  fuffer, 
v/hcrever  the  cafe  fliall  be  known.'  I  cannot 
help  faying  here,  1  did  not  think  Dr.  Chandler 
was  fo  little  of  a  Gentleman  as  to  infinuatc  to 
to  the  Public,  from  the  fcurriious  writer  in 
Gaines^  Gazette,  that  i  v^as  '  chargeable  with 
falfhood  in  this  affair/  and  to  declare  '  my 
reputation  mud  fiifi(er,  unlefs  I  met  with  an 
abler  and  fairer  advocate,  than  that  member  of 
the  fociecy,'  v;ho  wrote  in  my  vindication/  He 
knew,  as  he  had  eyes  to  fee.  that  this  charge 
of  falfhood  brought  againfl  me  was  grounded 
upon  a/^2//<?  repreicntatlon  of  what  I  had  faid — 
He  knew  alfo,  that  neither  that  writer,  or  any 
other,  to  this  day^,  has  To  much  as  attempted  to 

>  return 


^APPEx4.L  DEFENDED.'        99 

return  an  anfwer  to  what  was  offered  by  my  ad- 
vocate to  juftify  me  againil  this  charge — And 
he  knew  further,  that,   as  '  good   luck'  would 
have  it,  *  fo  able  and  fair  an  advocate,'  as  Dr. 
Chandler  himfelf,  has  appeared  in  my  vindica- 
tion :  For  he  has  declared,  in  cxprefs  words,  (p. 
12^)  '  That  the   Society  publifhed  fuch  an  in- 
invitation,  in  1706,  I  believe  to  be  true.'     How 
then  could   he   endeavour    tc>  lead   the  Public 
to  believe,  that  it  was  falfe  ?  Is  this  confiftent, 
with  that  honeft  fairnefs   which  might  reafon- 
ably  be  expc<5led  from  one  v/ho  profeflcs  to  be 
a  chriftian   Divine. 

It  may  deferye  the  reader's  fpecial  .notice; 
though    the    Do6lor   v/ould,    from    a  Ji5fitcui 
writer,  infinuate,  that  I  was  chargeable  with  fal- 
fhood,  he  has  not  ventured,  in  his  own  reply,  to 
exhibit  fuch  a  charge.   Inliead  of  this,  his  charge 
is,  thac  I  had  artfully  endeavoured  to  make  the 
reader  believe,   that  ke  had  been  guilty  of  fal- 
fiiood.      He  fays  not  a  word  tending  to   faftea 
falfhood  upon  me  ;  but  his  zeal  is  wholly  fpenc 
in  throwing   blame    upon  me  for  leading  the 
Public,  as  he  imagines,  to  think,   that  I  intend- 
ed to  reprefent  him  as  '  a  notorious  v/ilful  liar.' 
How  ftrangely  different  is  the  charge  the  Doc- 
tor has   brought  againft  me.  from  that  he  refers 
to  in  the  margin  ?  And  how  unaccountably  in- 
confiftent  is  he  with  himfelf,  in  mentioning  :r!S 
latter  charge  as  hurtful  to  my  reputation,  whea 
he  has  himklf  declared  it  to  be  falfe  ?  For  this 
is  the  meaning  of  his  acknowledgment,   '  thae 
the  Society    publiilied    fuch   an   invitation,    in 
1706,  I  believe  to  be  true.' 

Having  made  this  acknowledgment,  he  gees 
on  to  reprefent  the   *  invitation  of  the  Society'* 
as  nothing  to  my  purpole.      Says  hcj,  ^  It  ap- 
pears 


100  ^  REPLY  TO  THE 

pe^ars  that  it  was  only  occafional' — Very  true  5 
but  what  was  the  occafion  P  The  reader  will  be 
beft  cible  to  judge  from  the  invitation  itfelf, 
which  1  fliall  here  infert  at  large  -,  and  the  ra- 
ther, that  the  Public  may,  from  what  they  Ihall 
fee  with  their  own  eyes,  be  indifputably  con- 
vinced, that  I  have  been  treated  with  great  dif- 
ingenuity  and   bafenefs. 

In  an  account  of  the  Society  for  propagat- 
rrg  the  gofpel  in  foreign  parts,  ^c.  London, 
printed  by  jcfepb  Downing^  1706,  p.  74,  y^^  ic 
is  laid,  '  All  young  iludtnts  in  thofe  parts  [the 
Colonies]  who  dcfire  epifcopal  ordiniition,  are 
invitdd  into  England,  and  their  expences  of 
coming  and  returning  are  to  be  defrayed  by 
THE  Society,  in  purfuance  of  an  order  madj? 
TO  THAT  EFFECT.  AvA  the  fcmi  of  a  letter 
was  prepared,  and  allowed  to  be  fcnt  to  the  Go- 
vernor OF  New-England,  and  one  of  the 
like  importance  to  the  episcopal  Clergy  in 
thofe  parts,  encouraging  the  lending  over  hi- 
ther fuch  young  iludents  as  are  inclinable  to  be 
crcained,  and  to  embrace  the  miffion.'     - 

In  an  abdradt  of  the  proceedings  of  the  So- 
ciety, annexed  to  Dr.  Kemiet's  fermon,  Feb.  ry, 
IV I  i,  J712,  p.  44,  is  the  following  paffage, 
*  The^ Society  apprehending  that  nothmg  would 
more  effectually  tend  to  juflify  their  good  en- 
deavours, and  to  promote  the  fucccfs  of  them, 
than  to  iNFORr.i  the  world  of  their  founda- 
tion, eftablifliment,  and  continual  progrefs,  did 
agree,  that  the  book,  called,  '  An  account  of  the 
Society  for  propagating  the  gofpel  in  foreiga 
parts,  with  their  p  ececdings  and  fuccefs,  Lon- 
don, for  Jo/eph  Downing,  1706,  410/  fhould  be 
reprimed  With  a  continuation  dowu  to  the  pre- 
k^i  time/ 


^APPEAL  DEFENDED/      loi 

From  thefe  extrads,  ic  appears,   with  a  meri- 
dian luftre,  that  the  Society   wanted  and    de- 
lired  Colony  Miflionaries,  and  that  this  was  the 
OCCASION   of  their  pubHfhing  their   invitation, 
wherein   they  promise  to  defray   the  expence 
of  fuch  as  (hall  be  incHncJ  to  go  home  for  holy 
orders    :    and  this   '  invitation'  and    '  promife* 
were,  without  all  doubt,  commu/icated  in   the 
*  letter'  that  was  prepared  to  be  fentto  the  epis- 
copal Clergy,  that  they  might  communicate 
them   to  the  Colony-fludents  for  their  encou- 
ragement to  go  home  for  ordination.      And  it 
is  obfervable,five  or  fix  years  after  the  firft  pub- 
lication of  the  '  account'  in  which  this   invita- 
tion and  promife  arc  contained,   it  was  agreed 
and  ordered  by  theSociety,  that  itfhould  be  re- 
printed   to  promote  the  fuccefs  of  their  pro- 
ceedings.     Who  now    can   fuppofe,   that    the 
printed  and  reprinted  invitation   and    pro- 
mise of  the  Society  ought  not  to  be  looked  up- 
on as  an  obligation  lying  on  them,  in    point  of 
honour  and  juftice,  to  defray  the  expence  of  the 
voyage  to  England  for  orders,  unlefs  it  is  made 
known  to  them  that  it  has  been  defrayed  feme 
other  way  ? 

But,  fays  the  Dodlor,  before  the  firft  candi- 
dates from  this  Country  -went  home  for  holy- 
orders,  the  invitation  was  recalled,  or  rather  had 
expired.'  He  would  do  well  to  tell  us,  how 
it  (hould  expire,  if  it  was  not  recalled.  And 
let  him,  if  he  can,  produce  its  revokation  in 
any  account  the  Society  have  given  of  their 
proceedings.  Until  he  is  able  to  do  this,  he 
mud  excufe  us  Non-epifcopalians,  if  we  are  not- 
able to  fee,  but  that  the  Society  is  still  as 
(Irongly  obliged  as  ever  to  make  good  their  pro- 
mise to  the  Colony-ftudents,  unkfs  it  may  have 

been 


loi  REPLY  TO  THE 

been  vacated  in  any  inftances  by  the  payment 
of  cheexpencc  of  the  voyage  by  their  cpifcopal 
friends  here.      The  Dodtor  may,  if  he   pleafes, 
call  this  invitation  of  the  Society  an  *  antiquated* 
one,  and  compare  it  to  *  one  of  the  Englifh 
ftatutes  againft  the  Lollards  ;'  but  it  is  eafy  to 
perceive,  that  he  here  fubftitutes  laughter  in  th^ 
room  of  fober  argument,  and  for  a  very  good 
reafon  no  doubt.      He  would  juftify  the  invita- 
tion as   '  antiquated'  by  faying,  '  That  neither 
the  firil  candidates  that  went  home  for  holy  or- 
ders, nor  any  of  their  fuccefTors,  fo  far  as  I  can 
Jeanty  have  received  benefit  from  it.'     This,  if 
true,  is  really  ft  range,  and  refieds  no  fmall  dif- 
honor  on  the  Society.      But  the  Do6lor,  per- 
})aps,  may  in  time  make  higher  attainments  in 
learning  of  this  kind,  than  he  is  at  prefent  pof- 
feiTed  of,  and  find  that  both  the  '  firfl:  candi- 
dates,' and  '  fomc  of  their  fuccclTors'  too,  have 
received  benefit  from  this  invitation  and  promife 
of  the  Society.     I  am  the  rather  difpofed  to  be- 
lieve, that  this  is  the  truth  of  the  cafe,  from  that 
refpe^L  which  is  due   to  fo  venerable  a  body  of 
men  ;  and  afTure  the  Doftor,  though  he  '  has 
*  fo  publicly  and  boldly  afferted'  the  contrary,  it 
has  no  influence  to  put  me  upon  '  fufp^^ing 
my  own   ignorance'  in  this  matter.      For  it  is 
no  infrequent  thing    with  him   to  aftirm  that, 
both   '  publicly   and  boldly*   which    he   never 
would  have  done,  had  it  not  been  for  want  of 
more  knowledge. 

He  very  juilly  afTures  the  Public,  (p.  153) 
That  '  I  will  not  allow  that  the  church  of  En- 
gland, in  the  Colonie?^,  is  diftinguilhcd  and  ftig- 
matifed  by  a  want  of  thofe  religious  privileges, 
which  are  granted  to  all  other  denominations  */ 
and  for  this  very  good  reafon,  becaufe  *  Epil- 

copalians 


^APPEAL  DEFENDED.'       103 

copalians  are  allowed  the   fame  liberty  with  all 
other  pcrfuafions,  and  do,   with  as  much  free- 
dom from  moleilation,  worihip  GOD  in  the  pre- 
cife  way  they  themfelves  are  pleafed  to  chufe  :* 
Upon  which  he   cries   out,  '  Can  he  be  ferious 
when  he  lays  this  ?  Or  does  he  mean  to  infuk  us  ?* 
I  mean  to  infult  no  body  •,  but  I  ferioully  fpake 
a  real  truth.    '  Is  it  the  truth,  that  we  have  the 
fame  Uhrty   with  all  other  periuafions  ?*    I  af- 
firm it  is  the  exaft  truth.     '  Do  not  they  all  en- 
joy their  own  religious  fyftems  ccmpleatly,  and 
in  every  part  ?   But  can  this  be  predicated  of  the 
church  of  England  ?*  If  it  cannot,  it  is  not  ow- 
ing to  any  want  of  liberty,  but  to  their  not  ufing 
that  liberty" which  is  equally  granted  to  all  deno- 
minations without  diflindion.     '  We  compjain 
that  we  are  deflirute  of  the  power  of  ordination, 
and  are  not  allowed  to  enjoy  feveral  of  the  inilitu- 
lions  of  our  church,  which  we  hold  in  great  e- 
deem  and  veneration*.    The  anf^er  is  fhort  and 
eafy.     Epifcopalians  are   as   much  allowed,    as 
other  denominations,  to  procure  for   themielves 
the  full  enjoyment  of  all  the   fpiritual  privileges 
of  the  Kingdom  of  CHRIST.  Nothing  rellrains 
them  from   deriving,  whenever  they   pleafe,  or- 
daining, governing,  or  any  other  religious  pow- 
er, in  ic*s  pure,  naked,  fimple,  fpiritual    nature, 
which  i3  all  they  defire,  from  the  Bifnop  in  Cana- 
da, or  Pennlylvania  j  or  from,  a  Bohemian  or  Wal- 
denfian  BiQ-iOp;  [it  will  be  no  difficulty  with  the 
Dodtor  that  he  is    an  high-flying  one]  if  they 
cannot  derive   thefe   powers  from    an    Engliili 
one  :  They  are  indeed  at  full  liberty  to   ranfack 
the  whole  earth,  that  they   may  enjoy  their  tru- 
ly apoftolic  Epifcopacy.      Ifoiher   denominati- 
ons have  their  own   Pallors  and  Teachers,  their 
own    religious  .wprfliip,   government  and  difci- 

pline. 


i©4  REPLY  TO  THE 

pline,  it  Is  the  refult  of  nothing  more  than 
that  PERMISSION,  I  might  fay  right^  which 
Epifcopalians  arc  equally  favoured  with  ; 
and,  in  confequence  of  this  permifTion,  or  right, 
they  alfo  might  have  their  Bifhops,  and  their 
own  apoftolic  form  of  epifcopal  government. 
What  fliould  hinder  ?  They  are  no  more  under* 
reftraint,  than  the  other  denominations,  By  any 
interpofing  a6l  of  the  ftate,  either  in  England, 
or  America  ;  but  are  at  full  liberty  to  provide 
themfelves  with  fuch  fpiritual  officers,  difcipline, 
and  woifhip,  as  they  fliall  think  agreeable  to 
the  will  of  CHRIST;  and  if  they  do  not,  or 
will  not,  thus  provide  themfelves,  what  imagi- 
nable reafon  have  they  for  complaint  ?  Should 
it  be  faid,  their  principles  reilrain  them  from 
the  procurement  of  apoftolic  Epifcopacy  in  any 
way  but  from  theKing  or  fLate,and  by  beingdiftia- 
guiQied  from  all  the  other  Colony-denominati- 
ons :  In  this  cafe,  the  reply  was  given  in  tha 
anfvver  to  the  appeal,  in  thefe  words,  '  It  is 
from  their  principles  only  that  they  arc  hamper- 
ed with  difficulties.'  The  Dodor,  upon  this, 
has  difcovered,  as  he  had  often  done  before, 
that  his  peculiar  talent  is  not  that  of  reafoning. 
He  can  perceive  do  difference  between  difficul- 
ties, fuffered  upon  principle,  in  confequence  of 
the  non-beftov/ment  of  diftinguifbing  favour,* 
and  difficulties  that  are  fuftered  for  not  com- 
plying with  the  arbitrary,  tyrannical  precepts  of' 
men,  in  violation  of  the  rights  of  ccnfcience  s 
Yea,  he  would  make  us  believe,  that  difficulties 
fuffered,  upon  principle,  through  want  of  a 
grant  of  favour,  may,  with  as  much  pertinency, 
be  com.plained  of,  as  any  of  the  tortures  the 
Saints  of  the  Mofl  High  have  been  harrafled 
with,  for  their  adherence  to  theit  GOD,  from 

the 


^APPEAL  DEFENDED.'     105 

the  greateft  perfecntors  that  ever  exifted.  I 
lliall  only  fay  here,  for  once  borrowing'che  Doc- 
tor's own  police  words,  '  This  is  the  weakeit  of 
all  the  weak  things  he  has  faid.' 

It  was  obfervcd^  ap.  anf.  p.  150,  135,  «  That 
the  Non-epifcopalian  Clergy  and  Laity,   in  the 
tbwn  of  Bofton,  in   one  week   only,   fubfcribed 
two  thoufand  pounds  freriing  for  a  fund  to  fup- 
port  MifTionarics  among  the  Indian  natives,  up- 
on   condicion  there    might  be   an    incorporated 
fociczy  among  chemf-lves   for  conduding    and 
managing   this  important  affair  ;  chat  an  incor- 
porating ad:  was   prepared,   and  paffed    by   the 
^  feveral    branches  of  the  government  here,   and 
fent  home  for  the  Royal  fandion,  without  which 
it  could  not  continue  in  force  :   But  that  it  foon 
met  with   a  negative,   by  means  of  which   this 
whole  money   was  loll,   and  as    much   more  w« 
had  ^good    reafon  ,to  expe^   would  be  fubfcri- 
bed.'    This  was  complained  of  as   a  grf-at  hard- 
ftip.       And    it  was   then  -added,   '   We  fhculd 
cfteem  the   hardlhip  much  greater,    if,    in  any 
meafure,  it  was  brought  upon  c,s  by  episcopal 
influence.     I  will  not  too  pofitivcly  lay    it  was  ; 
but  this  I  will   fay,  and  in   the  words  of  a  letter 
from  home.'-^Thc  words  were  infertcd  at  Uyoq 
What  now  fays  the. Doclor?    Inftead  of  taking 
the  .lead  notice  of  this  letter,  he    mentions  it, 
from  one  he  calls  the   very  frnfible    author  of  a 
vindication  of  the  BiOiop  of  Landaff's   fermon, 
as  '  an  utter  improbability,    that  a  number   of 
eminently  pious  men,  who  have  the  converfion 
of  the  Savages   much   at  heart,   would    oppofe 
fuch  a   meafure  for  that  purpofe  '      I  am  htar* 
tily  forry  1  am  obliged  to  fay,  that  this^  num- 
ber of  eminently  pious   men'"  have  given    th« 
Public  lo  little  rcafon  to  think, that  they  have  the 
!?  €Qnverfioa 


loS  REPLY  TO  THE 

converfion  of  the  Savages  much  at  heart.'  Had 
this  been  the  real  truih,  it  is  impoflible  but  they 
fhould  have  done  much  more  than  they  have 
ever  yet  done  to  promote  their  converfion. 
They  have  made  u  abundantly  evident,  that 
they  had  at  heart  the  propagation  of  Epis- 
copacy, much  more  than  the  '  converfion  of 
the  Savages  •/  and,  if  we  may  be  permitted 
to  judge  from  their  condu6l,  we  fiialLnaturally, 
and  almoft  neccfifarily,  be  obliged  to  think,  they 
would  be  in  readinels  to  oppofe  any  plan  for  the 
converfion  of  the  Savages,  that  did  not  propofe 
to  convert  them  by  episcopising  them.  He 
fubjoins,  from  the  fame  very  fenfible  authpr, 
an  extradt  of  a  letter,  from  ore  of  the  mofl  im- 
fortant  m.embers  of  the  Society  to  his  friend  in 
this  Country,  in  which  it  is  fai^,  *  The  plan,  as 
prefented,  was  liable  to  feveral  objedions  ;  par- 
ticularly, that  the  members  were  to  be  accoun- 
table only  to  themfelvcs.  However,  the  So- 
ciety made  iso  opposition  to  it.'  It  was 
not  faid,  the  Society,  in  their,  charader  as  fuch, 
made  oppofition  to  our  incorporating  a6l.  It 
may  be  true,  as  this  letter  declares,  that  the 
Society  made  no  oppofition  ;  but  it  may  be  as 
true,  notwithfl:anding  what  is  here  affirmed^  that 
fome  of  its  members,  and  its  mofl:  important 
ones  tco,in  their  private  capacity,  might  oppofe 
it  with  their  whole  influence.  The  Dodor  al- 
fo  brings  in  Mr.  Afthorp^  'after  enquiry  upon 
the  fpot'  as  faying,  '  1  can  affirm  upon  very 
good  authority,  that  neither  the  Socieiyy  nor 
any  Epilcopalians^  as  such,  oppofed  the  ad 
of  the  Bolion  afifembly.' — This  may  be  true, 
and  not  inconfiftent  with  the  account  that  has 
been  given  us  by  others,  who  were  upon  the 
fpot  as  well  as  Mr,  Jphorp^  and  as  capable  of 

making 


^APPEAL  DEFENDED.'     107 

making  enquiry   as  he  can  be  fuppofed  to  be. 
The  letter  the   Dodlor  has  palled  over  in  filcnce 
fays,  '   There  is  reafon  to  think,  an  account  of 
the  incorporating  adl  was  fent  to  Lambeth  as 
early  as  to- — The    Arch-BiQiop  was  prejudic- 
ed— Umbrage  was  taken  at  the  new  Ibciety — 
The  lead    attempt  to  take   fubfcriptions  here 
would  have  blown  up  the  fulpicions  of  the  church, 
and  foclety,  into  an  open  flame.'      This  account 
we  had  from  one,    who,  to  fay  the  lead,,  was 
under  as  good  advantages,  as  Mr.   Apthorp^  to 
know  the  truth  of  the  affair.      And  it  is  obfer- 
vable,  Mr.    Apthorp\  affirmation  is  defignedly 
worded    with    particular    guard     and    caution. 
'Neither  the  Society^  nor  any  Epifcopalians,   as 
SUCH,  oppofed  the  a6l.'      No  one  ever  faid,  the 
Society^  as  such,  made  oppofuion  ;  though,  not- 
withftanding  what  is  here  affirmed,  fome  of  its 
members,  and  even  the  Arch-Biffiop  of  Canter- 
bury, its  Prefidtnt,  might  be  in  the  oppofition  : 
And  it  may,  in  like  manner,  be  true,  that  Epif- 
copalians   might  ufc  their  influence  againft   the 
paffing   this  a6t,  though  they  might  not  do  it  as 
SUCH,     His   faying,  '   it  was   rejcdled  upon  po- 
litical   and   commercial     reafons,    when   there 
was  not  oneBiffiop  prcfent/  may,  to  weak  minds, 
have  a  plaufible  appearance  -,    but  the  difguife 
is  thin,  and  eafily  feen   through.     It  was  never 
imagined,  had  there  been  episcopal  influence, 
but  chat  it  would  be  kept  out  of  fight,   in  the 
management  of  the  affair  at  ihe  board  of  trade. 
They  muft  been  blunderers  indeed,  if  they  could 
not  have  affigned  fome  other  reafons  of  their 
condudt,  than  that  they  had   been  applied  to  by 
Bilhops,  or  an  Arch-Biffiop,  though  not  in  their 
capacity  as  members  of  the  Society,  or  as  vefl;ed 
wuh  the  cpifcopai   office.      The  Dodlor  now 

fpcaks 


i®g        REPLY  TO    THE,  ^h. 

fpeaks  of  my  taking  no  notice  of  '  (o  clear 
and  fuU  evidence  of  the  Society's  innocence,  as 
one  of  the  ft.ange  modern  phenomena,  Vk/hich 
admit  not  of  an  ealy  iolution.'  It  is  at  once 
folved  by  only  faying,  it  was  none  of  my  bufi- 
nefs  ^o  take  notic^^  ot  this  evidence,  uncil  he  had . 
produced  x -^  upon  which  1  have  made  ic  very 
plainly  to  appear,  that,  inftead  of  being >  clear 
and  full  cvidenc©','  it  is  in  reality  no  evidence  at 
ail.  The  reader  will,  I  believe,  thinic  it  very 
extraordinary,  in  the  Dodor,  to  call  me  to  an 
account  for  raking  nq  notice  of  evidenx:e  he  had 
not  laid  before  me,  and  knew  not  that  I  hac}\ 
ever  ieea,  while,  at  the  fame  timie,  he  is  himleif 
chargeable  v/ith  raking  no  notice  of  the  let  er 
he  had  placed  before  his  eyes,  containing  muca 
(Ironger  counter-evidence,  1  will"  not  account 
for  this,  by  iiippofing  '  he  wrote  in  a  hurry,  and 
did  not  give  himftlf  time  for  recollection  :VA 
much  better  reafon  may  be  affigned,  namely, 
his  finding  himfelf  unable  to  return  a  juft  anfv/er 
to  the  contenis  of  fo  material  a  ktrer.  '' 

M^NY  other  things,  contained  in  this  part  of  ■ 
the  Dodoi's  defenc(r.  are  juilly  liable  to  excep- 
tion ;  but  he  dcfircs  '  the  controverfy  may  be 
brought  into- a  narrower  compais  ;  and  the  rea- 
idef,  1  imagine,^will  ihink  with  me,  that  it  would.^ 
be  needlefs  to  take  any  further  notice  of  what  i$ 
here  laid,  as  being  remote  from  the  grand 
roiNT  m  difpute.  To  this  therefore  1  ihall 
now  immcdiaiely  proceed. 


Reply. 


Reply  to  Dr,    Chandler's 
Eighth    Sedion. 


THE  Do£lor  comes.  In  this  fedtion^  to  in« 
valiciate  the  objections  that  had  been 
brought  againil  the  propolcd  plan  for  an  Ame- 
rican-Epifcopaie.  And  here  it  might  have  been 
expcded  to  find  him  exerting  himfeif  with  the 
greatell  vigor  and  ftrcngth.  But  we  are  greatly 
difappointed.  He  dlfcovers  lefs  fpirit,  and  is  lefs 
convincing,  in  what  he  has  offered  upon  this 
MAIN  POINT  in  controverfy,  than  in  any  pare 
of  his  performance.  He  feems  indeed  to  have 
kept  this  GRAN0  OBJECT  out  of  fight  as  long 
as  he  could,  if  we 'may  judge  from  the  19S 
pages  he  v/rote  before  he  came  to  it.  And  it 
would  have  been,  perhaps,  as  much  to  his  ho- 
ror,  if  he  had  wholly  paffed  it  over  in  filence, 
unlcfs  what  he  has  faid  had  carried  mere  weight 
with   it. 

Before  he  enters  upon  the  confideration  of 
the  objedions  to  the  epifcopal  plan  for  Ameri- 
ca, he  takes  notice  of  two  or  three  other  things, 
which  muil  detain  us  a  while. 

In  the  «  appeal  anAvered,'  in  a  marginal  note 
£t  the  bottom  of  p.  133,  mention  was  made  of  a 
copy,  that  had  appeared  in  one  of  the  public 
news-papers,   of  the  petition  that  was  fent  by  a 

number 


iio  REPLY    TO  THE 

number  of  epifcopal  Clergymen  to  the  Univerfity 
at  Cambridge,   in  which   lome  things  juftly  ex- 
ceptionable were  pointed  out.         The  Doctor's 
reply  is,  '  J  can  and  do  afTure  him  [Dr.  Chaun- 
ey\  that  it  is  ficLitious   and  falfe  ;  and  that  the 
Convention  feat  home   no  fuch  addrcfs,  nor  any 
that  contained  fimilar.  ex prciTions   with   thefe  he 
cenfnres.'      I  alio  can  and  do  alTure  Dr.  Chand- 
itr,  that  it  would  have  given   both   myfelf,  and 
the  PubHc,much  greater  f«tisfadion)  if  he  had  here 
inlertcd  a  copy  of  the  petition  itielf,  properly  au- 
thenticated. We  might  then  have  judged  forour- 
felves,  and  uot  been  puc   upon  yielding  implicit 
faith  in  his  bare  word  ;  which  though  true,m  his 
own   apprehcnfion,  might,  poffibly  be   otherwife 
in  the  view  of  oihers.     Whatever  the,  Dodor, 
or  theConvention  may  think,  it  carries  with  it  no 
good   afpcd',  that  they  <b  refolutely    keep  fecret 
their  petitions,  when   copies  of  them  have   been 
defired',  putting  us  ©fF  by  telling  us,  they  do  not 
contain  that  in  th^'m  which  we    have  heard  they 
'do,  and  in  fucH^  ways  that  we   fliali  believe  v/hac 
Vv'e  have   heard,  until   we  have  opportunity    to 
fee  with  our  ov/n  eyes. 

It  v/as  faid,  ap.  anfw.  p.  '35,  '  Some  of  the 
inoft  refpedable  Epifcopalians,  in  thbfe  parts, 
for  fobriery,  good  fenfe,  and  a  fteady  attachment 
to  the  interelt  of  the  church  of  England,  have 
declared  ic  to  be  their  opinion,  thatBifhops  would 
be  of  no  fervice  here,  and  that  they  did  not  de- 
fire  they  fliould  be  lent.*  The  Dc<^or,  upon 
this,  affeds  to  b?  at  a  lofs  to  know  what  '  pe- 
culiar idea'  1   intended  to  convey   by   the  phrase 

*  refpcctable  Epircopal.ans  ^*  v;hich  could  not 
cafily  be  accounrej  for  in  any  other  peifcn,  as  I 
was  particular  in    leprcfenfing  them   refpCLlable 

*  for  their   fobriery,    <^ood  frnfc,   and  licady  at- 

tachment 


'APPEAL  DEFENDED.'      iii 

tachment  to  the  church  of  England/  He  is 
much  puzled  to  underftand  the  meanuig  of  the 
*  indefinite  word,  some"-/  whether  I  intended 
by  it  '  two,  or  two  hundred.'  It  could  not  well 
have  been  *  impclTible'  for  him  to  have  known 
my  meaning,  in  the  u{c  of  this  innocent  word,  if 
he  had  only  allov/ed  himfelf  to  read  the  imme- 
diately following  fentence.  *  And  it  is  to  me, 
as  v;ell  as  to  many  I  have  converfed  with  upon 
this  head,  EpiscoPALrANS  among  others,  very 
queftionable,  whether,  if  the  m'^mbers  of  the 
church  of  England,  in  thcfe  northtrn  Colonies, 
were  to  give  their  votes,and  to  do  it  v*rithout  pre- 
vious clerical  influence,  they  would  be  found 
to  be  on  tlie  fide  of  an  American  Epifcopate.* 
One  might  '  poliibly'  have  guefied  at  what  I 
meant  by  the  word,  some,  after  this  explana- 
tion of  myfelf.  But  the  Do6lor  chofe  rather  to 
make  a  fnew  of  being  witty,  than  to  argue  ; 
though  his  wit  is  wholly  grounded  upon  a  par- 
tial rtprcfentation  of  what  I  had  faid.  He  goes 
on,  '  I  queftion  whether  there  is  an  Epifcopalian 
on  the  Continent,  either  of  a  more  or  lefs  re- 
fpedtable  chara61er,  including  in  it  fome  degree 
of  attachment  to  the  inierell  of  the,  church,  that 
has  objcdted.  agaiafb  an  Epifcopate  upon  the  plan 
of  the  appeal  '—What  he  here  fays,  put  into 
plain  EngliOi,  is  this  •,  he  queftions  whether 
truth  can  be  fpoken  unlefs  by  himfelf,  and  a  few 
others  who  fpeak  as  he  would  have  them.  But 
why  does  he  qucftion,  whether  any  Epifcopalian 
has  objeded  to  an  Epifcopate  upon  his  plan  ? 
The  realon  is,  bccaufe  *  he  muff  atft  a  very  un- 
natural, inconfiflent  pare.  For  how  abfurd  is  it 
for  a  man,  who  is  attached  to  the  church  of  En- 
-gland  in  America,  not  to  wifh  its  foundnefs  and 
health  ?'  And  here  he   goes  on   repeating,  in  a 

way 


til  REPLY  TO  THE 

way  of  argument,  what  he  had  often  urged  be- 
fore in  favour  of  his  American  EDifcopate.  But 
what  IS  all  fhis  to  the  point  ?  It  is  a  fa^^, 
Tiol  2i  fpeculative  truths  Y7t  are  now  upon.  And 
theDoclor  muft  know,  tinlefa  he  is  a  great  ftran- 
ger  to  the  world,  that  faBs  and  JpecuUtive  argu- 
ments do  not  always  harmonifc  with  each  other. 
Befides,  wttere  is  the  difficulty  in  fuppofing,  that 
mod  Epifcopaiians  on  the  Continent  may  have 
a  quite  different  notion  of  the  plan  for  an  Ame- 
rican Epifcopate,  from  that  the  episcopal 
Clergy  have  of  it,  who  were  its  only  for- 
mers, and  the  only  petitioners  that  it 
might  be  carried  into  execution  ?  Might  they 
not  be  apprehenfive  of  danger  from  a  plan  con- 
trived by  the  Clergy,  and  fent  home  for  ratir 
fication,  without  their  confcnt,  or  being  applied, 
to  for  it  ?  Surely,  ic  is  not  impofTible  they  (liould 
think,  notwithltanding  all  the  Doftor  has  faid, 
that  the  miffion  of  ^i^^ops  into  the^  Colonies 
would  do  more  hurt  *than  good.  ^'  This„  :  I 
know,  is,  in  fafl,  the  opinion  of  many  Lay-epif-, 
copahans,  and,  I  believe,  of  ..the  greater  part 
of  them  in  the  New-Engiand  Colonics.  I  Ihall 
only  add  here,  fpeculative  arguments  are  no  more 
futedto  invalidate  the  truth  of  this  fa^t,  than  they 
would  be  to  prove  that  there  were  no  Epifco- 
paiians on  the  Continent.  For  it  would  be  a 
much  eafier  tafk  to  prove  it  fpeculatively  abfjrd 
there  fhould  be  any,  than  that  they  ihould  be 
againft  the  propofcd  Epifcopate. 

The  Dodlor  animadverts  upon  nothing  fur- 
ther, until  becomes  top.  138,  where  he  fays, 
that  '  I  objedcd  to  their  plan  becaufe  I  thought 
it  had  been  illegally  fettled.'  And  for  aught 
any  thing  he  has  proved  to  the  contrary,  thcX)b- 
jedlion  to  the  plan,forthis  reafon,  Hands  firm  and 

wnfliakeD 


APPEAL  DEFENDED.'      113 

unfliaken.  He  fays,  '  I  take  it  for  granted, 
that  what  has  been  done  by  our  friends  and 
fuperiors  at  home  relating  to  it  [the  plan]  has 
been  done  without  the  King's  approbation/ 
And  well  I  might,  as  we  were  told  ot  a  fcheme 
fbrthe  miiTion  of  Bifhops  to  the  Colonies,  fettled 
by  Clergymen  at  home,  and  approbated  by 
Clergymen  here,  to  the  intire  n~gle£l  of  hu  Ma^ 
jefiy,  without  vvhofe  licence,  not  even  the  Con- 
vocation have  any  ng'-it  to  fettle  fuch  a  plan, 
or  fo  much  as  attempt  to  form  it.  The  Doc- 
tor allows,  '  that  the  cwo  houfcs  of  Cpnvocatioit 
have  no  authority,  without  a  Royal  licence, 
10  attempt,  enadl,  promulge,  or  execute  any 
canon,  by  whatever  name  it  might  be  called, 
which  fhould  concern  either  doflrine  or  difci- 
plne/  But  fays  he,  '  This  notwithftandng,  the 
Clergy,  even  in  convocation,  are  ftill,  in  feveral 
inferior  inftances,  left  ptrfefily  free.'  It  would 
be  ftrange,  if  they  were  not/  But  how  does 
this  prove,  that  ihey  are  *  left  pertedly  free'  in 
fuch  SUPERIOR  inftances  as  the  fettlcment  of 
a  plan  for  the  new  modelling  the  power  of  Bi- 
fhops ?  The  Kmg*s  fupremacy,  as  head  of  the 
church,  is  not  more  nearly  concerned^in  any  ec- 
clefiaftical  afFart  whatever.  He  goes  on,  *  The 
two  houfes  of  Parliament  cannot,  without  a  Roy- 
al licence  attempt,  ena6l,  promulge,  or  execute 
any  ftatute,  more  legally  than  the  two  houfes  of 
Convocation  can  enadt  a  canon.*  This  is  ex- 
prefTed  very  much  as  it  would  have  been  by 
one  who  did  not  underftand  the  proper  rights 
of  Parliament.  If  the  thing  meant  is,  that  the 
two  houfes  ofParliament,and  the  two  houfes  ofCon- 
vocation,are  under  the  fame  conftitutional  reft  rainr, 
he  13  entirely  miflaken.  The  two  houles  of  Parlia- 
ment arc  perfedtiy  at  liberty,  without  any  Royal  li- 
•  P  cencc;! 


^14  REPLY    TO    T  HE 

ccnce,  notonly  toATTEMf  T,but  adually  to  form, 
any  ftatutc,  plan  or  canon,  in  order  to  its  being  en- 
a6ted,promulged,and  executed  in  corififtency  with 
the  conftitution  :  Whereas  the  two  houfes  of 
Convocation  are  reftraincd,  by  the  ftatute,of 
the  twenty- fifth  of  Henry  the  eighth,  called  the 
adt  of  fubmifiion,  from  fo  much  as  attempt- 
ing any  law,  or  canon,  or  whatever  other  name 
may  be   given  to  it,  without   licence   first 

GRANTED  TO  THEM  BY  THE  KiNG  *,  and  hav- 
ing, in  virtue  of  his  licence,  agreed  on  any  can- 
on, or  conftitution,  they  are  not  permitted/to 
PUBLISH  it,  until  it  has  obtained  his  'confirma- 
tion. *  And  if  it  is  accounted  inconfiftent 
with  the  King's  fupremacy  in  ecclefiaftical  mat- 
ters, for  even  the  Convocation  to  attempt  to 
form,  fettle,  or  publifh  a  plan  for  the  regulation 
of  the  church,  wkhout  his  granted  per- 
mission, though,  in  fo  doing,  -  they  ihould  pro- 
fefs  the  higheft  regard  to  '  the  public  good  y  it 
ought  certainly  to  be  eReemed  much  mqre.  fo 
for  other  Clergymen  to  do  this,  efpecialiy  in  bo- 
dies convened  for  the  purpofe,  not  by  authori- 
ty from  the  King^  but  of  their  own  hc:ads  :  And 
it  makes  no  alteration  in  the  cafe,  whether 
they  are  fup  rior  or  inferior  Clergymen,  or  a 
mixture  of  both,  unlefs  in  the  degree  of  dilho- 
nourthatis  hereby, reflefted  on  his  Majefty  as, 
under  GOD,  the  fupream  head  of  the  church. 
They  may  fpeak  of  themfclves  as  *  confulting  the 
public  happinefs,'  and  doing  it '  with  the  utmofl: 
fidelity,'  and  all  '  deference  and  fubmifTion  to 
the  wifdom  of  government  ;'  but  time  was, 
when  they  would,  notwithftanding  fuch  a  com- 
pliment on  themfelves,  have  been  called  *  difaf- 
fedcd  affociations,'  and  as  fuch  been  '  fup* 
prcflcd  5*  as  has  often  been  the  cafe. 

The 

f  Vid,  Burn'i  Eccki,  lawjundcr  the  word  Convocation^ 


r      «APPEAL  DEFENDED.*       115 

The  Do6lor  takes  occafion  here  perempto- 
rily to  declare,  '  That  I  have  pronounced  all 
confultations  of  their  BiQiops  for  the  intereft  of 
religion  to  be,  in  general,  an  infringement  of  the 
King's  fupremacy,  unlefs  a  licence  for  that 
purpofe  is  fot-mally  granted  from  the  Crown.* 
He  has  been  fo  wile  as  not  to  refer  to  the  page 
in  which  1  fay  this  ;  and/  until  he  is  pleafed  to 
do  it,  I  fliall  think  myfclf  at  full  liberty  to 
cltcem  what  he  has  offered  as  a  grofs  mifrcprc^ 
fcntation. 

He  feems  to  look  upon  *  confultations  for  the 
intereft  of  religion,'  and  laying  plans  for  a  new 
regulation  of  the  power  ot  Bilhops,  and  the  cx- 
crcife  ofdifcipline   in  the  church  of  England,  as 
meaning  one   and   the   fame   thing.       But  he 
ought  to  have  known,  that  no  Royal  licence 
is  made  neceilary  for   confultations   to  promote 
the  general  intereft  of  religion  ;   whereas,   cvea 
the  whole  body  of  the  Clergy,  fuperior  and  in- 
ferior, are  not  permitted,  though  legally  affem- 
blcd  in  Convocation,  fo  much  as  to  attempt 
a  plan   for  ncW  modelling,  in  any  parr,  the  cc- 
clefiaftical  Gonftitution,  without  a  licence   for- 
mally granted  herefor  by  the  King.     Can  it  thea 
be  fuppofed  allowable,  for  a  dcputifed  Qergyman 
to  proclaim  it  to  the  world,  without  the  leafthint 
of  any  granted  licence  from  the  King,  that 
fuch  a  plan  has    been    '  privately  formed    and 
fettled  by   fome  fuperior  Clergymen   at    home, 
and  approbated    by  the  epifc9pal   Clergy  here,* 
and  in  convened  bodies  for  the  purpofe  ? — He 
would  now  fuggeft,  '  That  the  King  had   been 
confultid,  and   given    undoubted    proofs  of  his 
approbation  of  the  meafure.'      Why  then  was 
noi  the  plan  iutroduced  with  particular  notice  of 
io  iimportaat  a  poiru  of  deference  to  the  Royal 
/  -     fupremacy  ? 


ii6  REPLY  TO  THE 

fupreniacy  ?    Was  it  more  proper  to  tell  the 
Public,    ihac  the   cpifcopal    Clergy    here  were 
agreed  in  this  plan,  than  that  his    Majcly  had 
approbated  it  ?    And  why  is  there  not  n  w  ex- 
hibited   in    form    fome   authentic    proof  or  the 
King's  licence    to  con  live  aid  puoiilh  the 
plan  we  have  had  held  out  to  view  ?    This  would 
^ave  been   much  moie  faiisfadtory,  than  barely 
to  infmuate,  or  fay,  '  Thai  i:  had  been  honoured 
with  the  King's  approbation.' 
.,    Sensible,  -i  fuppofe,  of  the  infufficiency  of  all 
that  had  before  b  en  offered,   the  Dodor  now- 
.gives  us  the  foilowing  very  extraordinary  infor- 
mation.      Says  he,  *  The  charter  granted  to  the 
Society  for  propagating  the  gofpel,   has  the  na- 
ture and  efficacy  of  a  comiiiinion.'     For  what  ? 
Why,  '  by  this  charrer,  or  comnaiflion,  the  mem- 
bers are  warranted   to  concert  meafures,  and  to 
fettle  plans,  for  the  carrying  on  the  defign  of 
that  incorporation  in  the:  mod  effe6tual  manne?.* 
Very  true-  ;    but  was   it  any  part   of  .he   defign- 
of  that  incorporation  to  '  fettle  plans'  for  a  new 
jRiodelled  churcti  of  England  ?    The  Doctor  is, 
I  believe^  the  firft  man  that  ever  dreamed  of  a 
*  Royal  com  million'  in  *he  Society's  charter,  em- 
powcririg   its  niwmber-.  ro  contrive   fchemes  for 
governing  t  :c  church  of  *Eng5and  m  a   manner 
different  from  thar  which   has  been  ordained  by 
the  King  and   Parliament.      They   might   pro- 
bably thiiik,  '  That  an  American  Epifcopate  was 
highly  expedient'  in  ord-.-r  to  their  propagating 
Epifcopacy,  inftead  ot  religion  in  general  ;  and 
they  might  hereupon  '  feetch  out  a  general  plan 
for  fending   Bifhops   5:0    America,    which  ,plaa 
might  be  pubhciy  approved,  and  patronifed   by 
her  Majeily  Queen  ^}i^^    All  this  may  be  true, 
*nd  peffectly  coiiIiPcenc  with -due  honour  to  the 

Royal 


'APPEAL  DEFENDED.'      117 

Royal  fuprpmacy.      For  it  is  not  meerly  a  plan 
for  iending  Bifhops  to  Am  rca,  fhat  is  incon- 
liltent  herewith  •,  but  a  plan  thar  propofes  their 
niifil)n  to  carry  on   the  bufincfs  of  ecclefiaftxal 
-government  and   tlifciphne  in   a  manner  quite 
"different  from   that  whic  h  is  enjoined  by  the  au- 
thority or  the  King  and  Parliament.     The  pro- 
pored  plan,  as  '  r  fumed  and   digeded  with  pe- 
culiar a'trntio )  ;'  IS  of  this  fcTC  •,    and   there- 
'fore  a  d.red  violation  of  the   fcventy-third  can- 
on, which  enjoins,  '   That  no   Priefts,  or  Mini- 
ftcTs  of  GOD*s  word,  nor  any  other  perfons  (hall 
meet  together  in  any  private  houfe,  or  elfewhere, 
to  confjlc  upon  any  matter,  or  courfe  to  be  ta- 
ken by  them,  or  upon  their  motion,  or  diredion 
by  others,  which    may  any  way  tend  to  the  im- 
peacbin^^   or  depraving   of  the    doftrine  of  the 
church  of  England,  or  of  the  book  of  common 
prayer,  or  of  any  part  of  the  government  or  dlf- 
cipline   now  eftabliihed  in   the  church  of  En» 
glan.l,  undrr  pain  of  excommun  cation  ipfo  fac- 
W      The  Dofttor  fays   here,  '  Whoever  knows 
anything  of  the   hiftory   of  the  times   in  which 
the   canon  was  framed,  muil  be  fenfible  that  ic 
was  dcCigaed  againft  a  very  different  fort  of  per- 
fons from  thole  venerable  prelates,  who  formed 
and   fettled  the  plan   for  an   American   Epifco- 
pa^e.'      If  venerable  prelates  at  home  formed 
this  plan,  and  epifcopal  Clergymen  here  appro- 
bated  it  in    convened    bodies  for  the   purpof«, 
they  are  chargeable  with  the  very  crime  this  can- 
on was   defigned   to  guard  againft  ;    and  it  is  • 
more  aggravated  in  them,  than  in  '  the  different 
fort  of  perfons'  it   might  be  fuppofcd  would   be 
liable  to  condemnation  by  ic.      He  adds,  '  And 
as  it  was  defigned  again (l  a  very    different  fore 
of  perfons,  lo  the   words  of  it  cUarly  point  otii 

a 


;ii8  REPLY  TO  THE 

c  very  different  condua:  The  conduft  of  the 
pcrfons  concerned  in  the  forming  and  approba- 
ting this  plan,  is  as  like  that  pointed  out  and 
condemned,  in  the  canon,  as  [words  can  make 
it.  ^  There  has  been  '  the  meeting  together  of 
Priefts  and  others  •,'-— they  have  met  together 

*  m  private  houfes  or  elfewhere  ;— and  the  de- 
fign  of  their  meeting  was  *  to  confult  upon  a 
courfe  to  be  taken  by  them,  or  upon  their  mo- 
tion,' in  order  to  affeft  an  alteration  *  in  fome 
part  of  the  goirernment,  or  difcipline,  now  efta- 
bhfhed  in  the  church  of  England  :'  which, 
without  all  difpute,  is  the  very  fault  incended  to 
be  teftified  againft  in  the  canon.  There  is  no 
way,  indeed,  in  which  this  eftabii(hed  mode  of 
government  in  the  church  of  England  can  be 
more  diredly  and  efTedtually  impeached,  or  de- 
praved, than  by  practical  endeavours  to  get  it 
changed.  And  it  will  not  be  pretended,  that 
this  IS  not  the  tendency  of  the  propofed  and 
publifhed  plan.  Whether  the  '  Combinations 
and  confultations,'  to  this  end,  *  are  fadious,* 
or  not,  muft  be  determined  by  the  canon  itfcif  j 
which  certainly  fuppofes  them  to  be  fo. 

I  SAiB,  in  my  anfwer  to  the  appeal,  the  pro- 
pofed plan  '  is  a  plan  for  altering  the  govern- 
ment and  difcipline  of  the  church  of  England 
m  the  Colonies.'     To  which  the  Dodor  replies, 

*  Docs  he  then  believe  the  canon  was  intended 
to  fecure  the  government  and  difcipline  of  the 
church  of  England  in  the  Colonies  ?  Without 
this  intention  thepropofal  of  any  alteration  in  the 
form  of  ecclefiaftical  government  here  can  be  no 
violation  of  the  canon.'  Why  doColony-epifcopa- 
palians  glory  in  being  members  of  the  church  of 
England,  if  there  is  no  church  of  England  here. 
And  if  there  is,  it  is  as  as  reafonablc  to  fup- 

pofc 


•APPEAL  DEFENDED/     119 

pofe  the  canon  was  intended  to  guard  its  cfta- 
blifhcd  form  of  government  againft  impeachment 
or  depravation  here,  as  at  home.     Bur,  fays  the 
Dodor,  '  What   is  the'  nature  and  tendency  of, 
the  alteration  propofed   ?   Is  it  to  deprave  the 
government  of  the  church  of  England  at  home  ? 
No  ;  it  is  in  reality  to  honour  it,  by  endeavour- 
ing to  bring  the  government  of  the  church  here 
much   nearer  to  her  pattern,  than  it  is,  or  can 
be,  while  deftituie  of  Bifhops.*     One,  having  no 
biafs  on   his  mind,  would  not  think  it  refleded 
much  honour  on  the  government  of  the  church 
at  home  to  make  alterations  and  amendments  in 
ir,  before  it  is  thought  fit  to  be  cxercifed  here. 
And  the  fuppofed  alteration  mod  certainly  de- 
f  raves  it,  as  it  reftrains  Bilhops  from  the  exer- 
cife  of  that  government  over  the  Laity^  they  arc 
entitled  to,  not  only  from  the  grant  of  the  King 
and  Parliament,  but,  as  the  Do(Stor  believes,  of 
JESUS  CHRIST  and  his  Apoftles.    He  goes  on, 
*  Nor  is  the  plan  for  a  different  mode  of  an  Epif^ 
copate  for  the  church  of  America,  any  impeach- 
mens  of  that  under  which  it  cxifts  in  England/ 
The  proposing,  and  endeavouring,  an  alteration 
cfTentially  carries  in  it  the  idea  of  an   impeach- 
ment.     It  is  not  pofTible  it  Ihould  be  altered 
without  being  impeached.      What  imaginable 
reafon  can  there  be  for  a  change  in  any  mode  of 
government,  unlefs  it  be  fuppofed,  infufHcicnr, 
imperfedl,   and  not  futable  to  be  excrcifed,  ia 
thofc  refpeds  at  leaft,  wherein  a  change  is  dc~ 
fired  and  endeavoured.       And  this  is  the  verj- 
thing  here  meant  by  its  being  impeached.     But, 
fays    the  Dodor,    *  As  to  fuch  externals,  the 
church  of  England  has  always  allowed   them  to 
be  things  that  are  alterable,  and  that  they  ought 
<o  be  altered,  according  to  the  circumdances  and 

opinions 


120  REPLY  TO  THE 

opinions  of  different  Count  ies,  or  even  of  the 
fame  Country  in  dilfefent  ages.  When  fhe  has 
fnade  this  alteration  in  '  fuch  externals*  ar  home, 
America  will  of  courfe  r  ap  the  benefit  of  it, 
fliould  an  Epifcopatc  be  fttiled  here  ;  but  until 
this  is  done»  it  vvill  bean  mpcachnent  of  the 
mode  of  government  in  the  church  of  England 
at  home,  to  propofe  a  different  one  for  the  faT.« 
church  here,  it  is  an  idle  thing  to  fay,  '  That 
circumdances  in  Anserica  require  that  the  ex- 
ternals of  an  Epilccpate  (hould  be  undrr  a  re- 
gulation peculiar  to  this  country,'  Epif  opa- 
\\^x\s  here  aid  in  England  are  members  ofons 
and  the  fame  church  -^  and  no  circumftmces,  un- 
lefs  thole  of  a  meer  worldly  nature,  which  have 
nothing  to  do  with  a  purely  fpiritual  kingdom, 
can  make  it  fit,  futable,  or  reafonable,  that  the 
mode  of  an  Epifcopate  Hiould  be  different  from 
what  it  is  at  home. 

The  reader  v/ill,  perhaps,  by  this  time  be  dif- 
pofed  rather  to  wonder,  than  '  hugh/  at  the 
Da6lor's  '  audacioufnefs'  in  making  fo  light  of 
the  '  fulminations'  of  an  ellabiifhed  ca,non-»gainfl 
impeaching^  or  depraving  the  conftitutional  go- 
vernment and  difcipline  of  the  church  of  En- 
gland. He,  together  with  the  other  framers, 
approbators,  and  pubJifhers,  of  the  propofed 
plan  of  impeachment  would  do  well  to  confider, 
whether  they  are  nor,  by  the  determin^tioa  of 
their  own  church, '  excommunicated'  perfons. 

Th*e  way  being  thus  prepared,  we  now  come 
to  the  GRAND  POINT  in  debate,  the  propofed 
plan  for  an  American  Epifcopate.  According 
to  thcDodlor's  defire,  in  his  '  appeal  to  the  Pub- 
lic,' objc£l:ions  were  brought  againfl  this  plan. 
He  has  endeavoured  in  his  *  appeal  defended,' 
to  take  off  the  force  of  them.  We  (hall  impar- 
tially 


^APPEAL  DEFENDED.'     121 

tially   examine  what  he  has  faid  upon  each  ob- 
jedion  diftindly. 

Objection  I.  *  The  government  and  difcl- 
pline  of  the  church  of  England,  under  the  pro- 
pofed  American  Epifcopatc,  is  injurious  both  to 
the  church,  and  the  Bilhops  that  are  to  prefide 
over  it.' 

'  It  is  injurious  to  the  church.'  *  And  why  ? 
*Becaufc  it  is  to  operate  on  the  Clergy  only. 
1  he  lay-members  of  the  church  of  England  may 
not  be  favoured  with  the  benefit  of  the  governing 
autliority  of  the  BiQiops  to  be  fcnt.'  What  fays 
the  Jbodor  in  reply  ?  He  reafons  thus,  '  If  the 
Laity  are  not  to  be  affeded  by  the  Bilhops  au- 
thority, they  are  certainly  not  to  be  injured  by 
it  ;  that  which  does  not  operate  at  all,  produc- 
ing no  effed  cither  injurious,or  beneficial.  Wuh 
regard  therefore  to  the  exercife  of  difcipline  o- 
v«r  theLaity,  no  benefit  is  propofed,  and  no  inju- 
ry is  to  be  feared.'  Is  this  a  fit  anfwer  for  the 
public  view  ?  Are  not  Bifhops  appointed,  in  the 
fenfe  even  of  the  church  of  England,  for  the  be- 
nefit of  the  Laity,  as  truly  as  theClergy  ?  Are 
not  the  Laity  as  capable  of  receiving  benefit 
from  Epifcopal  authority,  duly  cxercifed,  as  the 
Clergy  ?  And  if  they  are  capable  of  being  bene- 
fited by  the  exercife  of  this  authority,  muft  they 
not  be  injured,  if  a  (top  is  put  to  its  operation, 
in  relation  to  them  ?  Its  not  being  permitted  to 
operate  at  all,  in  regard  of  them,  is,  in  the  na- 
ture of  the  thing,  injurious,  and  in  proportion 
to  the  greatnefs  of  the  benefit  that  is  loft  by  this 
non-pcrmilTion.  No  one,  1  believe,  before  the 
Doctor  ever  faid,  it  was  not  injurious  to  deprive 
the  Laity  of  a  fpirituai  priviledge  they  are  fup- 
pofed  to  be  entitled  to,  and  by  a  grant  from 
JESUS  CHRIST.   And  if  CHRIST  has  grant- 


^22  REPLY    to  THE 

ed  thcrn  this  privilege,  for  their  fpiritual  good",' 
what  power  on  earth  can  juftly  deprive  them  of 
it  ?  If  fuperior  Clergymen  at  home,  and  infe- 
rior ones  here^  fnould  combine  together,  and 
projed  a  plan  to  prevent  their  being  under  th^ 
governing  aiuhoricy  of  Bi (hops,  they  would  cer- 
tainly pho  away  an  indubitable  ps'ivilege 
they  are  entitled  to  as  members  of  the  church 
of  England  ;  and,  if  they  arc  really  Epifcopa- 
lians,  ihey  mud  look  upon  fuch  treatment  as 
highly  injurious  and  abufivc.  The  Do6lof,  in 
antwering  this  part  of  the  obje£licn,  has  done  n^ 
great  honour  to  himfclf.  He  could  fcarce  have 
faid  any  thing  that  would  have  more  expofcd 
the  weakncfs  of  v/hat  he  undertook  to  defend. 

The  propofed  plan  was  faid  to  be  '  injurioi^s 
alfo  to  the  Biihops  it  would  have  fent  to  i\v^ 
Colonies.'  And  for  this  reafon,  '  Becaufe  thty 
are,  in  a  meer  arbitrary  manner,  reftrained  m 
the  excrcife  of  that  authori*y,  which,  in  tas 
judgmiCni:  of  thefc  very  planners,  properly  be- 
longs to  them,  both  by  apoiiolic  appointmenr^ 
and  the  conllitution'  o\  the  chuich  ot  Engli:^nd.* 
The  Dodor  replies,  '  If  fuch  a  reftraint  is  fi;:>t 
injurious  to  the  church,  it  will  be  difficult  to 
prove  that  ic  can  be  injurious  to  the  Bifhops.'— i 
It  is  not  poflible  ic  fnould  be  any  other  thin  in- 
jurious to  the  church,  as  it  deprives  its  Laity  of 
a  privilege  they  arc  as  certainly-  entitled  to  as 
the  Clergy,  and  that  might  be  as  advantagious 
to  them.  But  he  fays  further,  'Are  we  tocon- 
fidcr  the  authority  of  Bifhops  as  lo  much  pri^ 
vate  property^  which  belongs  to  them,  and  every 
limitation  of  ic  as  fo  much  damage  fuftained  by 
the  Bifnops  ?  And  yet,  unlefs  we  confider  ic 
under  lome  fuch  idea,  I  {at  not  how  ic  can  be 
made  our,   that  any  frudc7it  rcftraints  of  their 

•    authority 


^APPEAL  DEFENDED.'      lag 

authority  can  be  an  injury  to  them.*  Ocular  de^- 
monft ration  only  could  have  convinced  me,  that 
the  Dodor  was  capable  cf  finking  fo  much  be- 
low a  man  of  common  undcrllanding  in  his  rea- 
foising  here.  Does  he  not  believe,  has  he  noc 
S^^rnuoufly  pleaded,  that  the  governing  autho- 
i  V  of  Biiliops  is  derived  fromjESUS  CHRIST 
hi'n'df^  And  if  CHRIST  has  veiled  Bifhopj 
v/'ith  tbeir  governing  authority,  is  no  ifijury 
dont  to  them,  arbitrarily  to  reftrain  them  in  the 
^YMcliC  of  this  authoruy  ?  If  CHRIST  has 
empowered,  and  commanded  Bidiops  to  exer- 
Ci^  authority  over  th;r  Laity,  as  v/ell  as  Clergy, 
ihJi  it  be  deemed  no  irjury  to  be  confined  ia 
die  cxcrcife  of  this  authority  to  the  Clergy  only  ? 
It  is  amazing,  one  of  the  Do6lcr*s  charadler 
iiiould  not  be  able  to  fee,  that  Bilhops  were  ca- 
pable of  '  futlaining  damage*  in  other  ways  be- 
fidcs  that  of  being  t9uched  in  their  '  private 
property  1*  If  he  had  allowed  bimfelf  to  con- 
fidcr,  he  mud  have  known,  that  a  good  BiilTiop 
would  have  efteemed  himfelf  more  highly  hjured 
by  being  reftrained  in  the  juil  exercile  of  the  au- 
thority commiiied  to  him  by  CHRIST,  than 
by  fuiTering  in  his  private  property.'  A  Islal 
reftrainc  of  authority  over  the  Laity  is  here  cal- 
led jj  '  prudent  one-  ;  but  it  can  be  fo,  only 
in  regard  of  political  worldly  ends  to  be  anfwer- 
cd  by  i^  I  entirely  agree  with  the  Do6lor  in 
what  he  adds,  '  He  that  is  fond  of  excrcifing 
■power  for  the  fake  of  excrcifmg  it,  w^ithout  re- 
garding whether  it  tends. to  cdiiication  or  de- 
Itrudion,  is  unwortliy  of  it.'  But  what  he  aims 
ac  provin^^  by  this  is  beyond  me  to  find  out. 
Surely  he  will  not  fay  Bithops  are  lb  fond  of  th'' 
dcllruclivc'powerjjicre  deicribed,  as  to  make  it 
e:.j;  ed:-:riC  to  reflui::)  them  from  the  exercife  ot 


ii^  REPLY  TO  THE 

any  power  at  all  over  the  Laity  !  And  unlefs  he 
means  this,  I  fee  not  to  vvhac  end  he  has  made 
the  remark.  And,  in  every  conceivable  view  ' 
ol  ir,  ic  holds  as  ftrong  againfl  their  having  pow- 
er over  the  Clergy  as  over  the  Laity.  This  is 
ijil  he  has  thought  fit  to  fjy  in  anlVer  to  the  firll 
objeclion.  The  reader  can  have  nojuft  idea 
•of  the  inter  iniuiiiciency  of  this  reply,  unlcls  he 
compares  ic  Vv'ith  the  objedtion,  as  ilated  and  il- 
luilraied  in  the  ^  sppeal  anfwercd.* 

Objection  II.  *■  The  Bifhops,  in  this  plan, 
are  lb  widely  ditferent  from  the  Bilhops  of  the 
church  of  England  at  homr,  that  it  is  not  rea- 
fonable  they  fnould  be  dcfircd,  or  fcnt.*  The 
Doctor  fays,  in  anfvver,  '  The  Bilhops,  in  this 
plan,  are  eJferJialiy  the  fsme  widi  the  Bilhops  at 
home^how  widely  foevcr  they  may  dificr  in  lomc 
Circumftanccs  '  -Can  they  be  ejjentially  the  lame, 
if  they  are  ejfentially  reftrained  in  the  exercifc 
of  that  authoriry  which  is  pioper  to  their  office, 
and  they  have  full  icope  to  exercilc  ac  home  ? 
And  yet,  this  is  thecxattt  truth.  It  is  cxprcfsly 
•propofed,  that  they  fliall  have  no  rule  over  the 
Laity  ;  that  is,  that  they  fliall  be  deprived  of 
one  half  of  that  authority,  as  to  its  exercife, 
which  is  ejfentia!  to  them  as  Bifnof^s.  He  goes 
on,  *  But  let  them  be  never  fo  dirferent,  if  luch 
Biflidps  a^  are  propofed  are  fitter  for  the  Colo- 
nies, than  luch  Bifhoos  as  are  in  Enf^jand,  then 
it  may  be  reaibnable  that  ihey  fliould  be  both 
delircd  and  fent/  Tt\c  plain  anfwer  is,  they 
are  not  fitter  for  the  Colonies,  than  for  the  Mo- 
therXountry  ;  and  it  is  unreafonablc  they 
fi:i0uld  be  dtfi red  for,  or  fent  to,  the  Colonies, 
nnrjl  ihey  arc  firft  enjoyed  at  home.  It  was  faid 
in  i.klliating  this  objcdion,  *  Shall  a  compara- 
tive !.-ndfuiof  epifc opal  prof c:irars;iricft  of  whom, 

in 


'APPEAL  DEFE  N  DED*       125 

in  many  of  the   Colonies,  are  (o  infufiicicnt  as 
that  they  are  upheld  in   Being,  with   refped  to 
their  religious  denomination,  at  the   charitable 
cxpence  of  a  diftanc    Society  ; — fhall  thcfe  ima- 
gine themfelves  fo  important  as  that,   for  their 
Jakes,   the  powers  and  appendages  of  Bifhops 
fhall  be  fo  mightily  abridged  ?  Surely  the  whole 
body  of  Diflcncers  in  England,  and  a  very  con- 
fiderable  part  of  the  cilablifhed   church  there, 
are  as  well  worthy  the  national  attention  ;  and 
it  is  as  fir,  their  requefts,  often  repeated,  fliould 
be   anfwered.       When  this  is  done  ic  will  be 
time,  and  not  before,  to  exped  that  this  plan 
fhould  be  confidered,  and  brought  into  cited.' — 
To  this,  and  much  more  of  the  like  import,  the 
Dcdor  has  only  laid.  That  he  '  had  before   giv- 
en a  full  and  fufficicnt  anfv/cr  :'  But  where,  he 
has  not  told  us  ;  nor  can  I  find   that  he  has  any 
where  given  fuch  an  anfwer,  or  even  attempted 
to  do  ip.     He  has  alio  filently  pafTed  over  whac 
was  argued  from  the  dodrine  of  uniformity^  made 
fo, important  a   matter  in   the  church   of  En- 
gland ;  as  that  it  would  mar  the  glory  of  this  uni- 
formity to  clothe  the  fame  officers  of  the  fame 
church  not  with  the  fame,  but  widely  differing 
powers  ;  and  that  there  would  not,  in  this  cafe, 
be  the  appearaRce  of  confiftent  regularity  in  one 
and  the   fame  ecclefiailical  conftitution. — This 
filence  of  the  Doctor,  in  anfwer  to  objcdions  he 
openly  '  invited  objedors  to  make,   that    they 
niight  be  fairly  and  candidly  debated  before  the 
tribunal  of  the  Pubhc,'  will,  I  fear,  be  conftf  ued 
to  his  difadvaniage,  if  not  to  the  hurt  of  the 
caufe  he  is  defending. 

He  goes  on  to  the  next  confidcration,' 
which  is,  '  That  if  Bifliops  fhould  be  fent  to  the 
Colonies,  with  thefc  reftiaincd  powers,  undefira- 

blc 


,^S  REPLY  TO    THE 

ble  confequenccs  might    be  naturally   feared^ 
both  here  and  at  home' 

An  undefirable  confequcnce  to  be  feared  here 
is,  '  That  the  Bifliops  would  tbrov/  off  this  re- 
ilraint  as  foon  as  might  be  ;    embracing  all  op- 
portunities, and  ufing  all  likely  means,  to  reco- 
ver thofe   appendages  to  their  ofKce   they   had 
been  deprived  of.*      This  was  faid,  and  lliewn, 
to  be  no  unrealbnablefuppofition.     The  Do£lor 
replies,  ^  Was  it  ever  before  offered  as  a  real'on, 
why  exorbitant  power  fnould  not  be  limited, 
(and  fuch  the  Dodlor  efteems  to  be  the  power 
of  Biiliops  in  Epgland)  becaufe  j:he  perfons  cur- 
tailed would  endeavour  to  throw  off  the  reflrainC 
as  loon  as  may  be  ?*  This  queftion,  as  thus  ge- 
nerally put,  is  quite  befide  the  cafe.     We  nersr 
objed:ed  to  the  propofl-d  limitation  of  the  power 
of  Bidiops,   as  being  in  itfelf,  in  its  own  pr©^ 
per  nature,"  unreafonable  and  unfit ;  but  to  the 
confinement  of  it  to  the  Colonies  :  and  for  this 
good  reafon,  among  others,that  it  would  ttrong- 
ly  tend  to  defeat  itfelf.      The  Eifhops  under  a 
reftraint  of  their  power  hen^  would  naturally  be 
difpofed  to  throw  it  off,  if  the  like  redraint  did 
not  take  place  at  home  ;    and  they  would  have 
this  plaufible   plea  to  make  in  their  own  juftifi- 
cation,  that  they  a^imed  at  nothing  more  than 
was  allowed  to  be  reafonable  and  proper  in  En- 
gland.    The   plain   trudi  is,   if  the   cxorbiraiu 
power  of  Bilhops  ought  to  be   reflrained   at  all, 
'it  is  as  reafonable  it  lliould  be  reftrained  at  home 
as  here\  and  it  is  a  good  reafon, why  it  Qiould  net 
be  rcftrained  there,   that  fuch  an  unfair,  partial, 
and    unjuit  reftraint   would,,  in   all   probability, 
throucrh  the  luft  of  power,   which  even  Eifhops 
arc  not  totally  delivered  from,  foon  come  to  no- 
thing here.      But  fays  the  DoClor,  *  Why  are 

we 


.      *  APPEAL  OEFENMD.'       iti 

>^t  to  fuppofe,  that  the  American  Billiops  will 
be  uneafy  under  fuch  a  limitation  of  their  pow- 
er, as  the  plan  exprelTes  ?'  The  rcafon  is  obvi- 
ous, namely,  bccaufe  Bifhops  have  difcovered, 
in  all  paft  ages,  that  corruption  was  fo  far  unmor- 
tified  in  thetrij  as  to  confift  with  a  Itrong  incli- 
nation to  enlarge  the  fphere  of  their  power, 
whenever  they  had  any  plaufible  pretence  here- 
for  \  as  they  certainly  would  have  in  the  pre- 
fent  cafe.  But  *  whatever  power  or  privilege^ 
they  [the  propofed  Bifhops]  (hall  once  pofTcfs, 
by  virtue  of  their  office,  they  will  continue  to 
hold,  as  long  as  they  (hall  remain  in  the  office  ; 
and  as  they  know  the  terms  before  they  accept 
of  it,  there  can  be  no  difappointment.  And  why 
fhould  they  be  uneafy,  becaufc  the  Biffiops  at 
home  are  invefted  with  civil  authority  ?  The 
Bifliops  at  home  may  as  properly  be  unqafy  and 
rcftlels,  becaufe  they  are  not,  like  fomc  of  their 
order  on  the  Continent  of  Europe,  fovereigm 
Princes.'  Some  Bilfaops  at  home,  in  times  pall, 
whatever  may  be  the  truth  at  this  day, were  un- 
eafy and  rcftlefs  fof^  want  of  more  honour  and 
power  ;  and,  without  all  doubt,  would  have 
tifed  any  means,  could  they  probably  hoped  for 
fuccefs  in  the  ufe  of  them,  in  order  to  their  be- 
ing as  *  fovereign  Princes'  as  any  '  Bifliops  on 
the  Continent  of  Europe.'  And  no  fecurity  can 
be  given  us,  if  the  dcfired  Bilhops  fhould  be 
fenr,  and  upon  the  propofed  plan  too,  that  they 
would  not  be  foon  fo  *  relllefs  and  uneafy,'  as 
toaffed  that  very  change,  in  their  retrained  dig- 
nity and  power,  which  is  fo  much  feared.  The 
Dodtor  goes  on,  *  Perhaps  the  uncafincfs  of  the 
AmericanBifliops  may  be  fuppofed  to  arife  fr^m 
the  reSedion,  that,  deftitutc  as  they  are  of  civil 
power,  they  are  Bifhops  of  the  fame  church  with 

thcit 


isS  REPLY  TO  THE 

their  brethren  In  England,*  And  it  may  natu- 
rally be  fuppofed,  they  would  be  '  uneafy,'  if 
not  at  firft,  yet,  in  a  little  time,  -from  the  re- 
flexion, that  they  were  deprived  of  that  power^ 
it  is  as  reafonable  they  fhould  be  vcfted  with,  as 
their  brethren  of  the  fame  church,  and  in  pre- 
cifely  the  fame  office,  at  home.  But  '  they 
will  not  be  able  to  avoid  this  further  "rcfledion, 
that  they  are  Bifhops  of  the  fame  church  in  dif- 
ftrtnt  countries,  and  under  different  circum- 
fbanccs  ;  which  efTcntially  alter  the  cafe.'  Ic 
is  not  probable  they  would  ever  make  (this  re- 
fledionjas  there  would  be  no  juft  reafon  for  their 
fo  doing.  It  is,  in  truth,  nothing  better  than  a 
vain  pretence.  The  fame  epifcopal-mode  of 
church  government  is  as  proper  for  the  Mo- 
£her-Country,  as  the  Colonies.  Nothing  in  the 
fituation  of  America,  or  in  the  circumftanccs  of 
the  Country,  or  of  the  Epifcopalians  in  it,  can 
make  it  reafonable,  or  fit,  that  the  epifcopal- 
mode  fnould  be  '  different*  here  from  what  it 
©UGHT  to  be  at  home,  tnlefs  it  be  fuppofed, 
that  the  Kingdom  of  CHRIST  is  not  that  fpi- 
ritual  one  he  has  declared  it  to  be,  but  a  King- 
dom whofc  government  is  founded  on  worldly 
policy,  and  is  to  be  fupported  upon  principles 
of  the  fame  kind.  What  but  the  wifdom  of 
this  world  could  ever  lead  any  man  to  think, 
that  the  profelTcd  difciples  of  the  fame  LORD, 
of  the  fame  religion,  and  of  the  fame  fubjedion 
to  the  fame  fpiritual  government,  Ihould  be  dif- 
ferently governed,  bccaufe  they  happen  to  live 
in  different  places  ?  No  confiderations,  but  thofc 
of  this  world,  can  be  mentioned,  that  will  juf- 
tify,  as  reafonable,  that  epifcopal  mode  of  go* 
vernment  here,  which  will  not  render  it  equally 
fit  in  England.     Says  the   Doctor  yet  farther, 

'  This 


^APPEAL  DEFENDED.'      129 

^  This  fame  kind  of  reafoning  would  operate  as 
flrongly  againil  epifcopal  Clergymen  in  America* 
as  againft  Bilhops.  The  Clergy  of  the  church, 
of  England  at  home,  are,  in  a  grea:  mieafure, 
fupported  by  tythes  ;  therefore,  it  may  be  faid, 
li  Cle^^ymen  of  the  church  of  Engfandare  once 
admitted  in  this  Country,  under  whatever  re- 
Itridlions  and  limitations,  they  will  net  b^  eafy,' 
until  they  fhall  have  fecured  to  themfelves  the 
tythes  of  our  edates.'  The  fa£l  here  fuppafed 
is,  1  believe,  ftridlly  true,  that  the  Clergy  of  the 
church  of  England  will  never  be  "•  eafy  until 
they  have  fccupect  to  themfelves  '  from  cur 
cftates  here,  what  will  be,  in  fubftantial  fignifi- 
carion,  the, fame  thing  with  the  tythes  in  En- 
gland. The  Do6ior  himfclf  very  obviouHy,' 
hoA^ever  undefignedly,  led  us  to  fufped:  this  in 
fome  hints  he  dropped  in  his  appeal  ;  and  that 
is  attempting  to  b.^  done,  or  actually  is  done,  at 
home,  refpeding  GLEBE-LANas  for  the  church 
of  England  in  Amerka,  which  puts  it  beyond  all 
doubt.  But  this  notv/ithflanding,  v;e  objecSt 
not  againft  the  admiffion  of  epifcopal  Clergy- 
men, or  even  Bifliops,  into  America,  if  they 
have  no  authority,  but  that  which  is  '  altogether 
from  CHRIST,'  and  not  from  this  world. 

At  home^  it  was  faid,  two  ill  confequence? 
might  be  looked  for.  One  was,  *  Thit  vafi: 
numbers  there,  who  have  long  complained  of 
the  too  largely  extended  power  claimed  and  ex- 
ercifed  by  Bifliops,  might  think  themfelves  hard- 
ly treated,  that  no  regard  fhould  be  paid  to  their 
intreaties,  while  a  comparatively  few  inconfi- 
derable  profefibrs  of  the  church  of  England  in 
America  are  heard,  and  an  Epifcopate  fettled  for 
them  according  to  their  rnind.'  To  this  the 
Dodor  anfwers,  '  The  reader  can  hardly  avoidi 
R  remarking,' 


120  REPLY  TO  THE 

remarking,  that  here,  and  in  many  other  pkccs,' 
the  Dodor  forgets  his  proper  bufincfs  and  cha- 
ra6ler.  His  bufinefs  is  to  anfwer  the  appeal 
upon  the  principles  of  the  Diilcnters  ;  but  in- 
flead  of  this,  he  frequently  endeavours  to  raife 
difficukies  and  objections  which  cannot  pro- 
perly be  made,  but  upon  principlei  oppofite  to 
his  own,  and  of  thofc  whom  he  reprelents,  in 
this  controverfy.*  The  Do6lor  has  injudici- 
aliy  naifplaced  this  remark.  Had  he  made  ic 
under  the  former  objedtion,  it  would  have  ap- 
peared more  plaufiblc.  As  brought  in  here, 
it  is  really  a  blunder.  Surely,  Diflentcrs  at 
home  might,  in  their  proper  charadcr  as  fuch, 
complainofhird  treatment,  (liouldtherequeft  be 
granted  to  a  few  comparatively  inconfidcrable 
American  Epifcopalians,  which,  for  a  long  time 
has  been,  and  (till  is,  denied  them  ;  though  the 
requeft  from  them  is  equally  reafonable.  It  is 
fcarce  poffible  but  that  they  fhouid  feel,  and 
groan  under,  fuch  partiality.  But,  upon  what- 
ever principles  this,  cr  any  other,  difficulty  is 
raifed,  it  is  proper,  if  a  real  one,  it  fhouid  be 
mentioned  by  way  of  objedion,  as  objtr6lions  of 
all  kinds  were  called  for.  And  the  Doctor  is 
now  informed,  if  he  needs  information,  that 
thofe  he  improperly  calls  Dipntirs  in  this  pare 
of  the  world,  are,  upon  chriftian  principles,  in 
real  earnefl:  that  the  epifcopal  Laity  may  not 
be  impofed  on  by  their  planning  Clergy.  The 
former  obj-dlion,  under  which  the  Doclor's  prc- 
fent  remark  would  have  been  more  pertinent, 
was  principally  made  with  a  view  to  ferve  them  -, 
as  there  has  been  a  combination  of  their  Cler- 
gy to  carry  Into  execution,  fo  far  as  they  were 
able,  a  fcheme  they  had  contrived  for  their  own 
fakes,  to  the  iniirc  negleifl  of  them  3    though 

much 


^APPEAL  DEFENDED.'        131 

much   more  worthy  of  the   mod  ample   pro- 
vifioR  they    could  have  made  for  their    fpritu- 
al    profit,   under    the    government  of  the   dc- 
fired   Biihops.      The  Doftor  goes  on,  '  It  will 
never  be  admitted  as   an  objedion  ceming  from 
ibc  Bijftnters  here.,  or  in   England,    that  many 
at. home   will  grow  more  clamorous  againft  the 
prefent  power  of  the  EngUfb  Biihops,  in  confe- 
quence  of  the  fcttlement  of  fuch  an  Epifcopare 
as  is  propofed  for  the  Colonics.'     What  bufmefs 
had  the  Do6lor  with    thofe  he  calls  "Bijfenters 
here^   when  the  objected  difficulty  was  the  un- 
eafinefs  the   propofed  plan    might  give  the  T)if' 
[enters   at  home  ?    Bv^fides,    he    ought  to  have 
known,  there  are  no  Dtjfmters  in  any  of  the  Co- 
lonics to  the  northward  of  Maryland,  unlefs  epif" 
copal  ones.     Mbrtover,  it    was  not    mentioned 
as   an  objection,  that  Diffcnters  at  home  would 
*  grow    more  clamorous   in  confequence  of  the 
fettlement  of  the  propofed   Epifcopate.'      This 
be  reprefents  as  my  objedion,   but  without  any 
juft  ioundacion  from  what  I  had  faid.     There  is 
a  great  and  wide  difference   betwixt  DifTenters 
being  '  clamorous  againft  the  power  of  the  En- 
glifh  Bifhops,'  upon  the  fettlement   of  the  pro- 
pofed Ej-ifcopate  hcrc,and  their  '  thinking  them- 
fclves   hardly  treated,  that  no  regard  Tiiould  be 
paid  to   the  r  intrcaties,    while  a  fev/  compara- 
tively  inconfiderable  Epifcopalians,  in  Amierica, 
are  heard,  and  an   Epifcopate  fettled  for  them 
according  to  their  mind.'  Thcfc  were  my  words  j 
and  they   contain  a  juft   rcafon  for  fuch  fenfati- 
ons  as  naturally  arife  from  hard  and  partial  treat- 
ment,  which  there  may    be.  without  being  at: 
all   *  clamorous.'      1  he  Do6lor  has  only  this  to 
fay  further  here, 'Shouldthc  objedion  be  made  by 
any  who  have  a  right  to  make  ir,  it  is  [ufficienc 

19 


in  REPLY  TO  THE 


O 


to  refer  them  to  what  has  been  already  faid  to 
the  purpofe.'  — Sgrdy,  if  he  had  a  right  to  '  in- 
vite objc6tors  to  propofe  their  objections,   that 
they  niight  be  faiily  debated  before  the  tribunal 
of  the  Pubhc' they  mud  be  fup poled,  at   leafl 
by   him,  to  have  this   right  which  he  feems   to 
queftion.      His  bufinefs  was    to  point  out    the 
impropriety,   or  inluiiiciency,   of  luch  objedtions 
as  any  might  make,  not  to  fuggeli  ihat  they  had 
no  right  to  make  them.       But  what  is  it  he  had 
already  laid,  to  which  he  refers  us  ?  It  is  in  thefe 
words,  '  That  fuch  an  Epifcopate  may  be  trad- 
ed HERE  with  eafe  ;  but  it  cannot  be  effeded  in 
England,    without    fubvtrnqg    an    eilablifli- 
ment,  and   making  a   veiy  \rifible   alteration   ia 
the   national   conftitution — a  work   nevtr   to  be 
undertaken   Lul  in  the  grcateil  extremity,  and, 
CMtn  then,  not  without  a  trembling  hand.'    We 
luve  nothing   more  here  ihan  an  affirmation   of 
his  own  opinion  j  though  he  knew  it  was  the  opi- 
iiion.ofoihers.equaily  capable  of  judging,  that  he 
is  certainly  and  grolsly  miftaken. —  fhe  propofed 
Epifcopaie  could  not  be  erected  i'^r^  with  that 'eafe* 
he  would  ijifinuate.    It  would,  without  all  doubt, 
bc.theoccafion  of  effecfU  fnnilar  tothofcjit  wouid 
have,  v^ti'G  k  to  be  erected  at  heme  ;    a{;d  they 
would  probably  be,  in  proportion,  as  great   and 
general.       As   to   its  '  fubverting  an  eftablifli- 
rnenr,  and   making  a  vciy  vihble  alteration   in 
the   national  conliitution,'  he  has    himfclf  given 
us  a  full  and  fufficienc  anfwer.     For  he  has  told 
us,  (p.    205)  That  '  as  to  fuch  externals  [as  the 
plan  for  an  Ariierican  Epifcopate  would  propofe 
Inould  be  altered]  the  church  of  England  has  al- 
Vv'ays  aJlowed  them  to  be  things  ihat>are  alterable, 
and  that  they  ought   to  be  altered,  according  to 
die  circun^ilances  and  opinions  of  dificrcnt  coun- 
tries. 


'APPEAL  DEFENDED/       ijg 

tries,  or  even  of  the  fame  Country  in  differen: 
ages.'  Perhaps,  he  will  allov/,  if  he  will  not  the 
impartial  Public  will,  that  the  circurnl^ances  and 
opinions  of  the  prefent  age  make  it  as  reafona- 
bk  and  lit,  as  they  w^ll  can  do,  that  thefe  al.- 

TERABLE      EXTERNALS      fhould     be     ALTERED. 

And  I   will  venture   to  fiy,   it  is,  in  the  prefent 
day,e;<tremely  neceffary  Rich  an  alteration  fhould 
be  undertaken.     The   fooner    the  better.     And 
it  might,  withoutJQiuch  difficulty  beaccomplilhed, 
if  gone  upon,  not  '  with  a  trembling  hand,'    but  a 
refolution  of  fpirit  becoming  men  and  Chrifiians. 
The  other  ill  confequence,  as  the  .Dodor  has 
been   pleafed  to  rcpfefent  it,  is,  *  That  the  Bi- 
fhops  in    England  mil  be  jealous,  that  an    in- 
vdfion  of  their  authority  was  intended'.     I  nei- 
ther faid,    nor   intended    to   fay,  that  any    in- 
vafion  of  their  authority  was  intended,  but  on* 
ly  that   they  *  might  eafily  and  naturally  argue 
from  what  was  done  here   to  what  might,   with 
as  much  reafon,   be  done  there  :'  Upon   which 
account,    it  was  further  faid,  '  It  can   be  fcarce 
fuppofcd,  it   fhould   efcape  the  thought  of  our 
Englifh"*Bifhops,  that  the  fettlement  of  fuch  an 
Epilcopate  in  America,  as  is  propofed,  may  pre- 
pare the  v/ay  for  fuch  a  change   in  the  power  of 
Biiliops  at  home,  as  they    would  not  be   very 
fond  of     To  which   the  reply  is,  '  I  will  only 
retnind  the  Doctor  of  one  circumftance  which  he 
happened  to  forget  -,  namely,  that  this  very  plan 
has   been  formed  and  introduced  by   thofe  Bi- 
fhops   themfelvcs,  and  confcquendy  Ihould  they 
be  jealous   that  any  invafion   of  their  power  is 
therein  intended,   they  jnufl:    be  jealous    thac 
they  have    intended   to  invade  it    themfelve^i". 
I    can     affure     the    Doctor   I    did    not   forget, 
that    a  few  Bifhops  at  home    might    have    an 
hand    in    the    formation    of    this    plan  j    but 

that. 


J34  REPLY  TO  TFIE 

that  they  ^11,  or  generally,  had,  1  have  never 
yet  leen  reafon  to  believe.  Buc  if  it  was  the 
pint  contrivance  of  them  all,  it  would  only  ar- 
gue this,  that  they  were  inattsntive  to  what 
might  be  the  refult  of  this  plan  in  the  natural 
courfe  of  its  operation  ;  or  that  they  were  above 
fearing  confequenccs  •,  or,  in  fine,  that  they 
defigned  this  plan  as  only  an  entering  wedge  to 
make  way  for  the  creation  of  more  Bidiops, 
who,  in  proper  time,  might  be  clothed  wich 
like  dignity  and  power  with  themfelves. 

The  impartial  public  will  judge,  whether  the 
Doctor  hai  fucceeded  better  in  his  anrwerto  this, 
than  the  foregoing  objedion.  I  could  wifh,  for 
his  own  fake,  he  had  acquitted  himfclf  more 
like  a  man  of  thorough  underfcanding,  '  that 
came  prbparcd'  to  plead  for  the  truth  only,  and^ 
Bot  '  to  objeift  at  any  rate,  rather  than  not  to 
objedt  at  all' 

Objection  III.  '  The  church  of  England 
knows  no  fuch  Biiliops  as  arc  Ipecified  in  this 
plan,  nor  can  they,  in  confiftency  with  its  con- 
ftitution,  be  fent  to  the  colonies'.  As  this  is  an 
objedion  cfTentially  deftrudlive  of  the  propofed 
plan,  if  it  exhibits  the  real  truth,  it  wa^juflly 
expcdtcd  the  Do6tor  would  have  been  particu- 
larly careful  to  demonftrate  that  it  did  Rot. 
And  yet,  to  the  furprife.  of  his  readers,  the 
whole  he  has  thought  fit  to  offer  is  contained- 
inthefe  words,  'this  objc£lion,  arvd  all  that  has 
been  faid  to  fupport  it,  has  been  fully  anfwered 
already'.  What  tnuft  the  public  fay  of  his  fo- 
Icmn  call  for  objtflions  to  be  fairly  debated  be- 
fore their  tribunal,  when,  upon  this  call's  being 
complied  with,  by  mentioning,  and  fupporting, 
an  ellentially  important  objedion,  he  virtually 
declines   debating  on  it  by  dogmatically  affirm- 


APPEAL  defended;        155 

ing,  '  that  it  has^  been  fully  anfwcred  already, 
and  all  that  has* been  laid  to  fupporc  it?  And 
this  is  the  more  extraordinary,  as  he  has  not  re- 
ferred to  the  page,  or  even  the  part  of  his  book, 
in  which  this  full  and  very  particular  anfvvcr  is 
to  be  found.  I  have  carefully  looked  over  the 
whole  he  had  '  already'  wrote,  and  cannot  find 
any  thing  that  refemblesthe  anfwer  he  defcribes. 
What  he  has  offered  upon  the  King's  fuprcma-- 
cy,  page  49,  and  three  or  four  pages  onwards, 
looks  the  mod  this  way  ;  and  this,  1  conjedture, 
is  what  he  refers  to :  But  it  is  far,  very  far, 
from  being  an  anfwer  to 'all  that  was  faid'  in 
fupport  of  the  prefent  objedion.  This  I  fhall 
no\4r  endeavour  to  make  evident  to  the  reader  ; 
and  may  venture,  in  the  doing  of  it,  to  engage 
his  attention  for  a  while,  without  being  charged 
with  keeping  out  of  fight  the  grand  point  in 
controverfy. 

The  plan  fays,  *  The  Bifliops  to  be  fent  to 
America  fhall  have  no  authority,  but  purely  of 
a  fpiritual  and  ecclefiaflical  nature,  fuch  as  is  de- 
rived ALTOGETHER  from '  the  CHURCH,  and 
not  from  the  state.  The  objection  againll 
this  plan  is,  *  The  church  of  England  knowi 
no  fuch  Bifhops,  nor  can  they,  in  confiftency 
with  its  conftitution,  be  fent  to  the  Colonies.* 
And  why  ?  Becaule  the  conftitutional  fupre- 
macy  of  the  King  is  fuch,  that  there  can  be  no 
Bifhops  without  his  licence  for  their  ele;5tion  ; 
nor,  when  cle(5led,  and  confccrated,  can  they 
cxercife  any  authority,not  in  purely  fpiritual  mat- 
ters, but  BY  and  under  him,  and  within  the 
limits  that  have  been  pointed  out  by  the  state. 
They  may  not  vary  a  title  in  any  one  thing  per- 
taining to  the  cxercife  of  their  authority.  How 
then  c*a  their  authority  be  altogether,  from 
-  ^     ^     -  the 


136  REPLY  TO  THE 

the  CHURCH,  not  from  the  state  ?  If,  con- 
fidently with  the  confiifution,  they  can  ex- 
ercife  no  authority,  as  officers  in  the  church 
of  England,  but  by  and  under  the  King 
as  SUPREME  Governor,  and  in  exad  confor- 
inity  to  the  orders  of  the  state,  how  is  it 
pofTible-  their  authority  fhould  be  '  fiich  as  is 
altogether  from  the  church, not  at  all  from 
the  state  ?  This,  to  ordinary  underftandings, 
looks-very  like  a  dire6l  contradidion.  In  this 
way  of  [arguing  the  objedlion  was  largely  fup- 
ported. 

Let  us  now  (ce,  whether  what  the  Doclor 
has  offered  upon  the  King's  fupremacy  is  '  a  full 
anfwer  to  all  triat  has  been  here'faid.'  He 
has  cited  the  thirty- leventh  article  of  the 
church  of  England,  which  conrains  her  doc- 
trine of  the  King's  lupremacy  j  he  has  cited  al- 
fo  the  Qiieen's  injundions  to  which  this  article 
refers :  But,  it  is  to  be  part-cularly  obferved,  in 
his  whole  arguing  upon  this  point,  he  attempts 
to  prove  no  more  than  this,  that  *  the  church 
was  believed  to  have  certain  powers  of  a  fpi- 
ritual  nature,  which  this  fupremacy  does  not  in- 
clude, and  which  our  Princes  are  fo  far  from 
pretending  to  convey,  that  all  manner  of  right 
to  exercife  them,  in  their  own  perfons,  is  there- 
in formally  and  exprelsly  difclaimed.'  That 
this  is  what  he  endeavoured  to  prove,  is  made 
indifputably  clear  from  the  manner  in  which  he 
illuftratcs  his  argument.  Says  he,  *  Let  it  be 
confidered,  that  every  man  is,  in  fome  i^Qnk,  a 
King  in  his  own  houfc  and  family  ;  and  no  cler- 
gyman has  a  right  to  come  into  it  to  perform 
any  ecclefiaftical  offices,  to  adminifter  baptifm 
for  inftance,  without  his  leave  and  confenr. 
Upon  him  it  altogether  depends,   whether  the 

clergyman 


•APPEAL  DEFENDEDED/    137 

Clergyman  fliill  have  a  proper  and  lawful &\i^ 
thoricy  to  perform  this  ofiice  in  his  family; 
Bucisic  not  evident,  that  the  giving  him  thac 
auchoricy  is  a  very  different  thing,  from  invefling 
him  with  the  general  povv'er  to  adminifter  the 
facraments  ?  In  like  manner,  as  aKin?,dom  may 
be  confidered  as  a  large  family,  the  Kmg  is  the 
political  father  of  this  family  ;  and  as  fuch  is  fu- 
preme  over  all  perfons  belonging  to  it,  whether 
Ipiritual  or  temporal.  And  without  his  cpnfcnc 
or  authority,  no  Biiliop,  or  ecclefiaClical  perfbn, 
can  lawfully  ouiciate  v/ithiti  his  dominions.  But: 
th^  giving  this  auchority,  by  commiffion,  or  ia 
any  other  way,  does  not  convey  to  any  man  his 
facred  character;  but  alv/ays  fuppofcs  him  to 
have  been  previoudy  inveded  with  it,  by  virtue 
of  a  commiOion  from  CHRIST.'  What  the 
Doftor  has  here  faid,  by  way  of  illuilration,  ia 
highly  exceptionable,  and  fervcs  little  to  any 
other  purpofe  than  to  make  it  certain,  that  all 
he  aims  at  proving  is  only  chisjthatjnotwithdand- 
ing  the  King's  fupremacy,  it  is  from  CHRIST, 
not  the  King,  that  the  authority  of  Bifliops,  as 
fuch,  in  the  church  of  England,  is  conveyed  to 
them.  It  is,  with  me,  beyond  all  doubt,  that: 
his  labor  upon  this  head  is  altogether  in  vain* 
The  Queen's  words,  in  her  injunctions,  as  quo- 
ted by  the  Do6tor,  are  thefe,  '  Her  Majeily  nei- 
ther doth,  nor  ever  will,  challenge  any  autho- 
rity, other  than  thac  was  challenged  and  lately 
ufed  by  the  faid  noble  Kings  of  famous  memo- 
ry, King  ]-Lnry  the  Eighth,  and  King  Edward 
the  Sixth,  which  is,  and  was  of  antient  (ime, 
due  to  the  imperial  Crown  of  this  Realm.*  '  What 
now  is  the  authority  thac  was  challenged  and 
ufed  by  thefe  noble  Kings  ^  Ic  is  noihing  lliorc 
of  this  J  that  they  were  veiled  with  'all  pov/er 

S  to 


I3l  REPLY  TO  THE 

to  exercife-  All  manner  of  jgrifd'^lion  ;  and 
that  Arch-Bifnops,  Bithcps,  Arch-Deacons,  and 
other  ci-cleiiadical  perlbns,  hav^e  no  manner 
of  jurifdidlion  eccUfiaJlicat'  bnt  ry  and  under 
theKiNxj's  Majesty,  vrho  hath  full  power  and 
authority  to  hear  and  determine  all  manner 
dfcaufes  ecclesiastical,  and  to  reform  and 
corre<5V  all  vxe,  irn,  errors,  hcrefies,  enormities, 
ablTlt;^  whatfoever,  which,  by  a^ny  p^ianner  cf 
spiritual  AUTHORiTY  or  iurif*h<::tion,  oughc 
or  may  be  lawfully  reformed,  ^  Who  that  be- 
lieves fuch  power  is  veiled  in  the  King,  as  fa- 
p!ehT^  head  of  rhe  church,  can-,  at  the  fame  tlmt, 
believe,  that  the  authority  of  Biihops,  in 
their  dcckTiaHical"  charader,  is  altog£TH£r 
from  the  CHURCH,  not  from  the  state  ?  i^ 
the  Doiftor  iiiould  be  able  to  prove  this  to  be 
wuhin  thc^  compafs  bf  pdlTibiiMy,  he  wotUd  dif- 
cover  a  tar  lifigher  reach  of  thought  than  he 
has  ever  yet  done.  But  we  ha-^c  no  need  to 
ciii^rge  here.  Siiould  it  be  iuppoled,  not  grailt- 
c:i,  ihiit  the  authority  of  Bifhops  docs  noc'floM^ 
from  the  Crown,  bat  from  the  church,  which 
is  the  uimolt  th^  Dodor  has  endea/oured  to 
pr.>ve.  It  will  not  foHow^  irom  hence,  that  he  has 
s^nfwtrcd,  or  fo  rji-4ch  as  attemp:ed  lo  anfwer, 
■'  ail  that  is  faid  u\  rapport'  of  the  objection  in 
cicbatc.  Dare  he  lay,  that  the  authority  of  tu<J 
clergy  of  the  church  of  England^  wheiher  fupc- 
nor  or  interior,  kt  him  derive  ic  from  whaE 
foutce  he  plcalcs  can  be  conilitutionally  exerci- 
iej  in  any  oiic  niltance,  but  as  pointed  out  by  the 

King 

*  Vi^.  Burn3  ercltiinftlcal  ]aw,  under  the  worel,ytt- 
premacy^  wHcreio  the  feveral  a«£^s  of  Pailiamcnt  re- 
jaiive  to  this  fubjcia,  in  the  icign  of  Henry  ths 
Ei'^hta  and  iiiuard  the  5i&tii  are  cit«^«   ' 


^APPEAL  DEFENDED.*      i^f 

King  and  Parlriment  ?  Can  the  whole  Clergf 
of  England,  v/ih  all  the  power  they  are  vefled 
vHth  from  CHRIS  1\  make  the  lead  alteration 
in  the  eftablhlitd  fortrj  ot  worfiiin,  crdination, 
or  government  ?  Is  there  any  one  thing,  in 
thefe  moil  jmporrant  religious  points,  thar  thry 
can  de':^a!t  or  vary  froan  ?  If  now  iheir  autho- 
rity, as  to  ITS  EXEP.CI3E,  is  intirely  under 
trie  djredion,  reltr^inr,  and  TpveTeign  controul 
of  the  King  and  Fariiament,  how  j^rofsly  abt 
lord  muft  it  b,e  cppropofe  the  miffion  of  Bifiaops, 
with  fuch  authority  only,  as  is  altogether. 
fiom  the  CHURCH,  and  -not  at  all  from  the 
STATE  I  Tnere  are  no  fuch  Biiliops  in  the 
church  of  England,  ncr  can  there  be  till  tho 
Kjng  is  deprived  of  that  fupremacy,  which  has 
been  granted  to  him  by  a^ls  of  Parliament, 
and  the  prefeat  ecclefiaftical  eftabliiliment  h  ei- 
taer  riuUified,  or  eilcntially  altered.  It  will  noc 
be  in  the  power  of  the  Do^ijr  fully  to^  an^- 
fwer  'ail  that  has  been  fiid ',  until  ht  has  in- 
telTg'iby  informed  us,  how  that  ainhority  is 
Af^TOGETHER  from  th^  cjiURCH,  2nd  not  fiom 
the  STATE,  which  can  be  ccerciled,  neither 
in  the  aifair  of  vvcrlliip,  ordination,  govern- 
ment, or  dilcipiine,  but  by  and  under  the 
guidance,  controul,  and  ioverrgnly  prefcribed 
order,  not  of  the  ^  church,  but  of  the  state; 
This  is  his  proper  biiOnclL — This  he  fbould 
h»ive  undertaken  in  his  reply  to  this  ob- 
je::lion — And  this  is  (till  incufTibent  on  him, 
if  he  would  entertain  the  ^Jeaft  hope,  upon 
juft  grounds,  of  fupporting  fo  firange  a  pro- 
ppfal  as  ihzt  o£  the  mifiion  of  fuch  Bifhops  to 
America,  as  are  unknown  to  the  churclrof  En- 
gland, and  cannot  be  fent  but  upan  the  fubver- 
lion,  or  great  alrcration,  6f  the  prefent  eccied^ 
aliiciil  cltabiifhmtnt.  i 


REPLY    TO  THE 

I  SHALL  only  add,  the  objedion  in  debate 
was  enforced  by  oblerving, '  That  rhisdepen- 
dance  on  the  state,  notwithllandlng  .  the  de- 
fircd  anthority'ALTOGETHER  from  thecHURCH, 
is  the  true  fourcc  of  all  the  hardOiips  and  grie- 
vances, on  account  of  the  want  of  Bifliops  in 
America,  that  have  been  To  bitterly  complain- 
ed of.  Did  Bimops  of  the  church  of  England 
no  more  d'jpend  on  the  state,  than  our  mi- 
niilers  do,  the  cpifcopal  churches  here  might 
ss  well  be  fqpphed  with  Bifhops,  as  our's  are 
with  Faftors/  &c.  To  all  which  the  Dodor 
lias  no  where  (dropped  a  word,  though  he  has 
'  fully  aniwered  ail  that  was  faid,'  it  certainly 
lojks  as  though  he  did  not  know  what  to  fay,  or 
be  vv'ould  have  faid  that  which  would  have  had 
a  better  tendency  to  fervc  his  ca*bfe. 

Objection.  IV^  'We  are  in  principle,  againfl 
sil  civil  cftabliQiments  in  religion  ;  and  as  we  do 
rot  defire  any  fuch  ellablifliment  in  lupport  of 
our  own  religious  fentimcnts,  cr  pra61ice,  we 
cannot  reafonably  be  blamed,  if  we  are  not  dif- 
pofed  to  encourage  one  in  favour  of  the  cpifcopai 
Colonics"  The  Dodor  obferves  upon  this, 
*  if  by  We,  I  mean  thofe  of  the  congregaiional 
perfuafion  in  New-England  in  general,  the  ob- 
jedion  contains  an  article  of  intelligence  that  is 
to  him  NEW.*  Nothing  more  follovvo  from  hence, 
than  that  he  is  informed  of  fomething  he  did 
not  know  before.  But  though  he  would  affed  to 
be  ignoi-anc  of  a  real  truth,  he  is  frtc  to  declare 
his  faith  in  an  imaginary  one,  namely,  '  That  « 
large  majority  of  the  feveral  perfuafions,  ex- 
cepting the  people  called  Quakers,  notwith- 
Randing  the  declarations  that  have  been  publifh- 
ed  agamft  eitablilhments  in  the  grofs,  had  aU 
>vay3  a  rcfervc  in  favour  of  the  eftabiiihment  of 

thc:i* 


^APPEAL  DEFENDED.*     141 

their  own  religion.'  Was  it  to  the  purpofe  of 
the  prclent  argument,  I  coLild  eaniy,  notwith- 
(landing  '  the  hidorical  accounts,  and  authentic 
anecdotes,  in  the  Doctor's  pofTeflion,'  make  it 
appear,  with  a  meridian  luilre,  '  That  the  Pu- 
ritans, in  the  reign  of  Queen  Elijabeth^  are  in- 
jurioufly  milVeprefented  in  what  he  has  here 
given  us  '  from  Maddox\  anfwerto  NeaU^  And 
he  mud  not  tii^e  it  amifs,  if  i  tell  him,  that  we 
are  not  furprifed  at  his  endeavouring  to  unco- 
ver-ihe  nakednefs  '  of  his  anceftors/  as  he  is  a 
DESERTER  from  that  great  cause  which 
brought  them  over  to  this  then  defolate  land  : 
Nor  is  it  beyond  what  we  expefled,  to  find  him, 
and  many  of  the  Society's  MifTionaries,  who  are, 
either  profcUtes  themfelves,  or  the  [ons  of  pro- 
/elites,  fired  with  extraordinary  zeal  in  propa- 
gating high-church  principles.  This  has  all  a- 
long  been  the  way,  on  this  fide  the  Atlantic,  in 
which  converts  to  the  church,  efpecialiy  clerical 
ones,  have  endeavoured  to  give  proof  of  the  fm- 
cerify  of  their  convcrfion. 

Ke  now  comes  to  the  point  in  debate,  and 
agrees  with  me,  '  That  if  I,  and  thofe  of  my  pcr- 
fuafion,  donotdcGrean  eihabiifhment  in  fupport 
of  our  religious  fentiments,  we  cannot  be  rea- 
fonabiy  blamed,  if  we  are  not  difpofed  to  en- 
courage one  in  favour  of  the  epifcopal  Colo- 
riiits.'  But  fays  he,  *  What  has  the  cafe  of  re- 
ligious ciiabliiliments  to  do  with  the  Araericaa 
Epiicopate,  which  has  been  offered  to  the  Pub- 
lic ?*  He  knew,  or  might  have  known,  that  the 
objection  fuppo fed  they  had  a  great  deal  to  do 
with  it  ;  and,  inftead  of  afking  fuch  a  needlefs 
queftion,  he  fliould  have  evinced,  upon  the  foot 
of  folid  argument,  that  they  had  no  connection 
with,  ©f  relation  to,  each  other.  But  he  con- 
tents 


i4t  f.EPLY  TO  THE 

tents  hlmfelf  with  only  going  on  afKing,  '  Does^ 
this  plan  propofe  an  eitabliQimentof  the  church  ?* 
It  undoubtedly  does.     '  Will  the  exe-cu lion  of  ijt 
iraply,or  amount  to,  ^ny  fuch  thing  ?'  Yes  ;  or  it 
can  never  be  carried  intoexecution.    'Willihein- 
trodudion  of  Biihops,  who  fhall  have  no  authority, 
but  purely  of  a  fpiritual  and  tccl  jfiaftipal  nature, 
iuch   as  is  derived  altogether  froi?i  thechurch, 
and  not  from  the  0. ate  ;  [and  fo  on  to  the  con- 
clufion  of  the  plan  •,]  I  fay,  will  the  introdudti- 
oi3  of  fuch  Bifliops   as  thefe  amount  to  an  cfta- 
bhfhment  ?    N^y,  can    It  have  any  more  afpedt 
againft  the  civil    or  religious  privileges   of  the 
Coloniiis,  th^n  againit  tbofs  of  the  Crim  Tar- 
tars'?   Surely  the  Dodtor  could  not   but  know, 
before  he  aflced  th:?fe  queRions,  that  it  was  only 
aildng,    whether   we  thought     there    was    any 
weight,     or  force,    ia   the    produced  objedion. 
How  unaccountable  i-herefore  is  it,  that  he  could 
imagine,  that  he  had  faid  any  thing  to  the  pur- 
pofe,  by   barely  putting  theie   qucllions  !   Thty 
are  really  nothing  more  than  fo  many  ftrongly 
ovprcfTed  affirjniations  :  and  will  be  call  this  argu- 
ing ?  He  propofed,   that  every   objection  fhould, 
be  fairly    debated   before   the  tribunal   of  the 
Public  •,  butj  inftcad   of  debating  upon  this,  he 
roundly  and  repeatedly  affirms,  by  way  of  que- 
ry, that  it  has  no    validity  in    it.     His    proper 
work  was,  to  make  it  clearly  evident,  by   gcod 
reafoning,  that  the  propofed  plan   did  not  imply 
an  eilablilhmc  nt,  and  that  it  could,  without  one, 
be   carried    inco   cffcd  5    the  contrary  to,  y/hich 
will,  without   all  doubt,  be  found    the  truth    cf 
fad,  if  ever  this  plan  takes    place.     If  it  fnould, 
h    muft  be  by  tne   cojillitution  oi  a   new  church 
of    Eegland  in   the    Colonits  •,    but  how  this 
caa  be  cffeirted  without  an  eltabliflimcntjaccorvj- 

ing 


^APPEAL  D  E  FENDED.'      i>3 

ing  to  the  true  idea  of  this  word,  no  one,  unlefs 
ic  be  the  Dodcr,  can  explain.  This  is  what  h« 
ought  to  have  done  in  anfvver  to  the  prefent 
objedion  ;  and  until  we  are  thus  favoured,  we 
fliall  take  the  liberty  to  think,  we  are  perfcc'Uy 
confident  with  ouriclves,  while  v\c  arc  not  dif- 
pofed  to  encourage  the  planned  epifcopal  efta- 
blifhmenr,  as  we  defire  no  eftablifhment  of  our 
own  mode  of  rcKgious  goYerniPiCnr,  or  diici- 
pline. 

The  Doflor  now  gives  us  a  curious  fpecimen 
of  his  talent  at  nice,  {Xnd:,  cbfe  reafoning.  1 
had  faid,  '^  It  does  not  appear  to  lis,  that  CHRIST 
has  entrufted  the  Hate  with  a  right  to  make 
religious  eftabliilimtrits.  ]f  the  flats  in  England 
has  this  delegated  authoritv,  mufl  it  not  be 
owned,  thic  the  (late  in  China,  in  Turkey,  in 
Spain,  mud  have  this  'authority  alfo  ?  What 
ihould  make  the  difference  in  the  eye  of  true 
reaf^jn  ?  Hath  the  ftate  in  England  been  diftih- 
guiilied  by  Pleavca  by  any  peculiar  grant,  be- 
yond the  (late  in  other  Countries  ?  If  it  has 
let  the  grant  be  produced.  If  it  -has  not,  all- 
flatcs,  have,  in  common,  the  fame  authority. 
And  as  they  niuft  fcverally  be  fuppofed  to  exert 
this  authority  in  eftablilhments  conformable  to 
cheir  own  Icntimenrs  in  religion  ;  what  can  the 
confequcnce  be^  But  infinite  damage  to  the 
caufe  of  GOD,  and  true  religion  ?  And  fuch  in 
fadhaa  been  the  confequence  of  thefe  cilabHlh- 
mencs,  in  aJlages,  and  in  all  places'.  Some  of 
thefe  bad  conlequences  were  then  particularly 
mentioned.  Let  us  now  fee  the  Do6tor's  reafon- 
ing to  invalidate  what  was  thus  offered  againft 
the  rig bi  of  ftatcs  to  make  religious  eftabhili- 
raents.  Says  he,  '  The  fame  argument  witlx 
whioii  the  Dod:<jv  endeavQurs   to  overthrow  it 

■  [this 


,44  REPLY    TO    THE 

[this  right  ofdatcs]  is  as  forcible  agamfl  ths 
right  of  private  judgment.  This  will  evidently 
appear  from  the  following  experirnent.  If  a 
pe^fon  in  England  has  this  i ighr,  muPi  it  not  be 
owned  that  a  perfon  in  China,  in  Turkey,  in 
Spain,  mull:  have  it  alfo',  and  fo  on,  applying 
what  i  had  offered  againft  the  right  ef  ft  ales  to 
make  religious  eftabiiiliments,  to  the  right  of 
private  jucigrr;ent  ;  as  though  the  argument  was 
equally  forcible  againd  the  latter  as  the  former.' 
But  furtly  the  Dodtor  does  not  believe,  that  the 
right  of  ftates  lo  make  religious  efiablifh merits 
is  as  clearly  and  indubitably  a  grant  from  GOD, 
as  the  right  of  private  judgment  !  And  if  he  does 
not,  what  doih  his  arguing  prove  ?  The  cafes 
irjuft  be  parallel,  or  the  reafoning  from  the  one 
to  the  other  cannot  beppnclufive.  It  is  allowed, 
the  bad  efleds  that  'follow  from  the  exercife  of 
private  judgment  are  no  proof,  that  men  have  not 
univcifally  a  right  to  judgf  for  themfelves.  And 
why  ?  Becaufe  they  have  this  right  granted  to 
them  by  GOD  himfelf,  and  we  aic  as  fure  of  it 
jis  that  he  has  granted  them  any  other  right 
whatever.  Is  the  caf^i  the  fame  with  refpe6t  to 
the  right  of  ftates  to  Inake  religions  eftablifh- 
ments  ?  Is  not  their  pretended  r/g/^/ founded  en- 
tirely on  its  fuppofed  connedion  with  th*  real 
intsrell  of  religion  ?  It  is  therefore  a  good  argu- 
ment againft  this  rights  though  none  at  all  againd 
the  ri^ht  of  private  judgment^  that,  inftead  of 
being  advantageous,  it  has  been  infinitely  hurt- 
ful to  the  caule  of  GODJ  and  true  virtue.  The 
religion  of  Jcfus,  in  particular,  has  fufftred 
more  from  the  exercife  of  this  pretended  right, 
than  from  all  other  caufes  put  together  ;  and 
it  is,  with  me,  patl  ali  doubr,  that  it  will  never 
be  rcllored   to  its  primitive   purity,  fimplicity; 

«nd 


^APPEAL  DEFENDED.'     145 

and  glory,  until  religions  eftablifhments  are  fo 
brought  down  as  to  be  no  more.  In  {hort, 
when  the  Doftor  fhall  make  it  evident,  that  the 
Jiate-right  we  are  confidering  ftands  upon  the 
fame  bottom,  and  is  as  inconteflably  a  grant 
from  GOD,  as  the  right  of  private  judgment,  we 
fhall  then  allow,  that  the  bad  confequences  flow- 
ing from  the  exercife  of  thefe  rights  arc  as  for- 
cible an  argument  againft  the  one  as  the  other, 
that  is,  no  argument  at  all  ;  bur,  until  then  we 
fhall  think  this  afguing  altogether  below  one, 
who  would  be  efteemed  a  gentleman  endowed 
with  a  good  capacity  for  rcafoning*  I  am  obli- 
ged to  (ay,  the  Dodtor  feems  to  have  no  great  ta- 
lent at  anfwering  objedions,  or  has  been  unac- 
countably carelefs  in  the  doing  of  it.  Inftead  of 
recommending  to  the  reader  what  has  been 
wrote  againft  religious  efiiihlilhments^  I  would  ad- 
vife  him  to  confult  his  own  reafon,  and  to  pay 
a  regard  to  the  didates  of  common  sense,  and 
he  need  not  then  fear  being  led  afide  cither  by 
'Bifhop  Warburton\  alliance  between  the  churcli 
and  the  ftate,  or  Dr.  Stebbing's  eflay  concerning 
civil  government,  or  Dr.  Roger\  vindication  of 
the  civil  eftablifhment,  or  Bifliop  EUys  on  fpi- 
ritual  liberty,  or  a  late  elegant  eflay  on  cfta- 
bliflimcnts  in  religion,  in  aniwer  to  the  confef- 
donal.' 

Objection  V.  '  The  church  of  England  in 
the  Colonies,  in  its  comparative  low  ftate,  in- 
ftead of  an  Epifcopate,  upon  this  plan,  or  any 
other,  needs  rather  the  charitable  afliftance  of  its 
friends  to  fupport  its  prefenc  Minifters,  and 
others  that  arc  ftill  wanted.*  The  reply  be- 
gins, *  The  Doflor  forgets  that  the  church  of 
England,  in  fcveral  of  the  Colonies,  is  not  in 
that  comparative  low  ftate  he  fpcaks  of  5  but  is 
T  able 


146  REPLY    TO  THE 

iiblc  to  fuppbrt,  and  does  fupport,  its  Miniftcrs 
in  general  as  amply  as  any  fee  of  Clergymen  arc 
fupported  in  the  Brltifh  dominions.*  This  1  did 
not  forget,  though  I  took  no  notice  of  it,  for  this 
very  good  reafon,  becaufc  it  did  not  appear,  that 
the  church  of  England  in  any  of  thefe  Colonies 
had   complained  for   wane  of  Bilhops,  or  were 

•  difpofed  to  petition  for  them.  The  only  com- 
plainers  and  petitioners  are  rcfidents  in  the  other 
Colonies,  where  the  church  of  England  is  in  the 
comparatively  low  (late  that  was  reprefcnted. 
Neither  Clergy,  nor  Laity  in  the  Colonies 
where  epifcopal  Miniflers  are  fo  '  amply    fup- 

^ ported/  have  made  any  ftir,  that  we  know  of, 
about  the  want  of  Bifhops,  or  fignified  their  de- 
fine of  their  miflion.  But,  fays  the  Do(5lor, 
*  Suppofing  the' church  throughout  the  Colonies 
needed  the  charitable  afliftance  of  its  friends  to 
fupport  its  Minifters,  yet  this  would  be  no  proof 
that  it  docs  not  need  alfo  an  Epifcopate.'  If 
it  would  be  no  proof  of  this,  it  would  fully  prove, 
that  the  epifcopal  Clergy,  in  the  Colonies,  are 
boundlefs  in  their  defires  of  charity.  One  would 
think,  the  amazing  funi  that  is  annually,  and 
charitably,  expended  in  fupporting  MifTionaries, 

■  might  fatlsfy  the  fturdiell  beggars,  without  han- 
kering after  as  much  more  charity  as  would  be 
fufficient  for  the  fupport  of  Bifhojps.  Befidcs, 
they  cannot  have  Blfhops,  upon  the  propofed 
plan,  unlefs  the  church  of  Englaad  is,  by  the 

Jiate^  differently  conftitutcd  here  from  what  it 
IS  at  home. 

I  HAD  faid,  '  In  North-Carolina,  the  religious 
ilatc  of  things,  by  all  accounts,  is  deplorably 
fad — They  have  few,  very  few,  Minifters  to  of- 
ficiate in  gofpel-adminiftrations.  That  charity, 
which  might  be  fufficient  for  the  maintenance  of 


'APPEAL  DEFENDEDED.'    147 

as  many  Miffionaries  as  would  be  needful  there,' 
would  be  fv/allowed  up  by  on«  Bifliop  only. 
And  would  this  tend  fo  much  to  the  honour  of 
GOD,  and  the  good  of  fouls,  as  if  it  was  ex- 
pended in  fupport  of  miiTiOns  that  are  really  nc- 
ceffary  ?'  Upon  this  the  Do6lor  cries  out,'  It 
is  furprizing  to  fee  what  advantages  are  claimed 
by  fome  people  !  How  they  can  make  nfe  of 
the  fame  argument  to  different  purpofcs  !  When' 
other  ends  are  to  be  anfwcred,  the  writers 
agamft  the  church  can  tell  us,  that  the  Society 
have  no  power  to  apply  their  funds  to  other 
ules  than  were  intended  by  the  donors — But 
now  an  Epifcopateisin  view,  itis  thought  reafona- 
ble  and  juft  that  the  Society  fhould  alienate  a 
fund,  more  ftriflly  appropriated  to  a  particular 
ufe  than  any  other  in  their  power,  (for  this  may 
be  truly  faid  of  the  fund  for  the  fupport  ofAme- 
rican  BiHiops)  and  expend  it  upon  MiiTionaries 
to  be  fcnt  to  Carolina,  and  other  places,  provi- 
ded always,  that  fuch  places  are  at  a  due  dif- 
tance  from  New-England.'  It  is  not  eafy  to' 
conceive,  what  could  give  occafion  for  this 
ftrange  remark.  Not  a  word  v/as  faid  of  the 
fund  appropriated  for  the  fupport  of  American 
Biihops,  or  of  the  Society's  expending  one  far-- 
thing  of  this  fund  toother  ufes  than  were  intend- 
ed by  the  donors.  It  was  only  faid  in  gene- 
ral,'  That  charity  which  might  be  fufHcient  for 
the  maintenance  of  as  many  Miffionaries  as 
were  wanted  v/ould  be  f.vaUowed  up  by  one  Bi- 
fhop  only.*  Has  the  Society  nothing  put  into 
their  hands  for  the  fupport  of  the  gofpel  in 
America,  bcfides  what  is  appropriated  for  the 
fupport  of  Bidiops  here  ?  And  as  the  fund  icr 
the  fupport  of  American  Bifhops  is  infofficienr, 
might  not  the  Society,  wiihfidciity  to  their  uuft. 


^,48  REPLY    TO    THE 

in  the  Dodlor's  opinion,  make  up  this  deficien- 
xy,  (hould  Bifliops  be  lent  ?  This,  and  this  on- 
ly, is  what  1  had  in  view.  And  as  Mifliona- 
ries  were  peculiarly  wanted  in  Carolina,  and 
other  places,  it  was  fuppofed,  and  1  believe,  up- 
on juft  grounds,  that  it  would  be  more  for  the 
honour  of  GOD,  it  (liould  be  expended  this 
way,  than  in  fupporting  Bidiops.  What  the 
Doctor  has  here  faid  is  therefore  quite  aliene 
from  what  was  really  intended,  nor  m  the  leaft 
an  anfwer  to  it.  Had  he  looked  within,  I  can 
fcarce  think  his  confcience  would  have  fuffcred 
him  to  infmuare,  that  1  fpake  of  miffions  to  Ca- 
rolina, becaufe  at  '  a  due  diilance  from  New- 
England.'  He  knows,  that  the  cxprefsly  nam- 
ed objed:  of  the  Society's  care  is,  the  miffion  of 
Clergymen  for  the  adminiftration  of  the  word 
and  iacraments  in  thole  Colonics,  where  there 
was  no  provifion  at  ail,  or  a  mean  one,  for  the 
publick  worfhip  of  GOD.  And  he  muft  know 
likewife,  unlefs  he  is  ftrangely  ignorant,  that 
Carolina  is  the  Colony,  if  there  is  any  one  on 
the  American  Continent,  where,  as  we  have  of- 
ten been  told  in  the  fociety-fermons,  they  had 
fcarcely  any  form  of  public  worfhip  j  where  even 
the  lord's  day  was  hardly  diftinguifhcd  from 
other  days,  but  by  greater  idlcnefs  and  profane- 
nefs  jand  where  baptifm  and  the  LOKD's  fup- 
per  were  fcarcely  known  to  be  adminiftred. 
Why  then  would  he  fuggeft,  that  I  mentioned 
Carohna,  becaule  '  duly  diftant  from  New-En- 
gland ?'  He  has  not  herein  difcovered  that 
chnltian  concern  tor  the  propagation  of  the  gof- 
pcl,  according  to  the  acknowledged  defign  of 
the  Society's  charter,  which  might  have  been 
cxpcded  from  a  Mifiionary  in  virtue  of  it.  He 
adds,  '  As  the  Society  have  never  a&d  the  pare 

of 


^APPEAL  DEFENDED.'      149 

of  unfaithful  (lewards,  in  oiher  cafes,  we  can  be 
under  no  apprehenfions  that  they  will  in  this.' 
I  fay  not,  that  they  have  adled  an  unfaithful  part  • 
but  this  1  will  fay,  it  is  the  real  truth  of  fadt,  to 
whatever  caufe  it  may  be  owing,  that  they  have 
employed  few  Miffionanes,  next  to  none,  in 
Carolina,  where  ihey  were  moft  needed,  and 
multiplied  them  wher?  there  was  little,  if  any 
need  at  all  of  them  -,  and  in  fome  places  they 
have  fupported,  and  are  dill  fupporting  them, 
where  the  churches  to  whom  they  miniftcr  are 
abundantly  able,  without  any  alfiftance  from 
them,  to  fupport  the  gofpel.  And  though 
guarding  the  Colonics  againft,  or  delivering 
them  from,  the  delufions  and  fuperftitions  of 
Popery,  is  one  eiTcncial  part  of  the  budnefs  of 
the  Sccicty,  as  pointed  out  in  their  charter,  they 
have  fo  ftrangely  ncgledted  Canada,  which,  ever 
fincc  the  conclcfion  of  the  lalt  war,  has  been  a 
Province  in  fubjedlion  to  the  Britifh  Crown,  as 
to  give  occafion  for  a  letter  to  them,  from  the 
Chaplain  to  the  garrifon  at  Montreal,  wherein 
he  fays,  ^  '  That  the  R-omifh  Priefts  avail 
thcmfclves  greatly  of  the  negleded  (late  of  the 
church  of  England  in  thofc  parts  ;  perfuading 
the  Canadians,  that  we  have  not  religion  i'o 
much  at  heart  as  they.'  Let  the  impartial 
Public  judge,  wheihcr  it  would  not  be  a  much 
flronger  argument  of  the  Society's  faithfulnefs 
as  ftewaras,  to  take  effectual  care  that  Carolina 
and  Canada  have  a  full  fupply  of  Miffionaries, 
rather  than  New-England,  New-York,  the  Jer- 
fics,  or  Pennfylvania,  where  there  is  no  pretence 

of 

*  Abftraa  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Society,  annex- 
ed to  the  fociety-fermon  preached  Feb,  17,  17^9* 
by  the  Bifhop  of  Briflel, 


ic^o  REPLY  TO  THE 

of  any  want  of  them,  but  mcerly  to  uphold  a 
different  mode  of  adminiftration  in  one  and  the 
fame  religion. 

I  HAD  faid,  '  As  to  the  Colonies,  extending 
from  Pennfylvania  to  the  northermoft  bounds 
of  the  Mafrachufetts-Province,  notwithftanding 
ihe  pious  care  of  the  Society  at  home,  and  the 
vail  charity  they  have  been  annually  expending 
in  favour  of  the  church  of  England,  from  their 
firft  incorporation  to  this  day,  it  has  grown  but 
little  in  comparifon  with  the  other  denominati- 
ons of  chriftians,  not  having  got  as  yet  beyond 
its  infant  ftate.'  Says  the  Dodtor  in  reply,  '  I 
conceive  he  mud  be  miftaken  as  to  the  fadl.  In 
Pennfylvania,  Ncv/-Jerfey,  and  Nc^-York,  I 
will  not  bcpofitive  that  the  church  hasxcncreafed 
beyond  the  proportion  of  other  denominations 
for  fifty  years  pad — But  in  the  New-England 
Colonies  it  appears,  from  good  accounts,  that 
the  church  has  confiderably  increafcd  ;  and  that 
the  number  of  its  profcfTors  at  this  day  bears  a 
greater  proportion  to  the  number  of  inhabi- 
tants, than  it  ever  has  done  before.  I  may  be 
niiftaken  with  regard  to  fomc  of  the  New-En- 
gland Colonies  :  But' — .  He  has  hitherto  fpoken 
cautioufly,  but  not  like  one  .who  appears  to  have 
a  fufficient  acquaintance  with  x\\^  real  truth  of 
fa6t.  Upon  the  itridleit  examination,  it  would 
be  found,  that  the  increafe  of  other  denomina- 
tions, beyond  the  increafe  of  Epifcopalians,  is 
greater  in  New-England,  than  in  New-York, 
New-Jerfcy,  or  Pennfylvania  •,  and  this  greater 
increafe  is  rapidly  goin^  on  in  all  the  Colonics 
that  conlfitute  wiiat  is  called  New-England,  ex- 
cepting the  Colony  of  Conncfticur,  in  which 
there  has  been  the  greaiefl:  increafe  of  the 
church  of  England  i  but  there  is  nothing  *  amaz- 
ing* 


^       ^APPEAL  D  EFENDED/      151 

ing,'  as  the  Do(5lor*s  epithet  is,  in  this  increafe  : 
Nor  had  he  the  leaft  reafon  to  go  on  faying,  '  I 
cannot   at  prefent  recoiled  an  example,  in  any 
age  or  country,  wherein  fo  great  a  proportion  of 
profejites  has  been   made  to  any  religion  in  fo 
jfhort  a  time,  as  has  been  made  to  the  church  of 
England  in  the  weftern  divifion  of  that  populous 
Colony  ;    unlcfs  where  the   power  of  miracles, 
or  the  arm  of  the  Magiftrate,  was  exerted  to  pro- 
duce that  effed.'      Notwithftanding  the  hyper- 
bolical mode  in  which  theDodor  here  flouriihes, 
there  are  not  one  tenth  part  fo   many   Epifco- 
palians,   even  in  the  weltern  divifion   of  Con- 
nedicLit,  as  there  have  been  fterling  pounds  ex- 
pended in    order  to  profelitc  them  :    Nor  are 
there  more  epifcopal  churches  in  all  the  New- 
England  Colonies,  than  there  have  been  thou- 
fands  of  pounds  tterling  fpcnt  to  found  and  fup- 
port  them.      And   they  are,  by  far  the  greater 
part  of  them,  not  excepting  thofe  In  the  above- 
mentioned   '  weftern  divifion,'  in   fo  weak  and 
low  a  ftate,  that  there  would  be  no  hope  of  their 
continuedexiftence,  if  that  charily  was  withdrawn, 
which,  at  firft,  gave  being  to  them,  and  has  all 
along  fuppotted  them  in  being  :    Whereas,  the 
churches   of  other  denominations,   without   the 
help  of  charity  from   abroad,  or   the  expectation 
or  defire  of  any,    are  become   numerous,    and 
continually  increafe  in  number,  beyond  what  has 
been  known  in  any  age,   or  place,  fincc  the  firlt 
ages   of  chriftianity. 

I  HAD  fpoken  of  the  church  of  England  here, 
*  as  being  in  its  infancy,  not  able  to  ftand  upon 
its  own  legs,  and  fo  far  from  a  ftate  of  matu- 
rity, as  not  to  make  it  worth  while  for  a  Biftiop 
to  come  here.'  The  Dodor  replies,  '  infant 
and  feeble  as  (he  is,  he  has  allowed  that  ftic  may 

b« 


!5£  REPLY  TO  THE 

be  270,000  ftrongin  the  Colonies — Now  can  he 
pofllbly  think,  when  he  allov/s  himfeif  time  for 
confideraiion,  that  the  church  of  England  in 
Anficrica,  containing  2 7 0,000  members,  in  v;hich 
are  included  moll  of  the  governors  and  princi- 
pal perlbns  in  the  Colonies,  is  (o  inconfidcrable, 
that  it  is  not  worth  while  for  si  Bifhbp  to  take  the 
charge  of  it  ?'  When  1  fuppofed  the  church  of 
England  might  contain  270,000,  1  took  inro  the 
computation  all  the  Epifcopaltans  on  the  Ameri- 
can Continent.  But  when  I  fpake  of  her  as  in 
*  an  infant  feeble  Rate,  not  able  to  (land  upon 
her  own  legs,'  my  view  was  (  as  may  be  leen  in 
the  paiTagcs  with  which  ihefe  words  are  connect- 
ed) to  her  exiftence  in  the  feven  Colonies,  ex- 
tending from  Fennfylvania  to  the  utmoft  north- 
cail  bounderies  of  the  MafTachufetts- Province  ; 
in  all  which,  though  they  contain  by  far  the 
greatefr  number  of  inhabitants  on  this  Conti- 
nent, there  are  not  more  than  26  or  27  thoufand 
profeflbrs  of  the  church  of  England,  who  arc 
fcattered  over  an  extent  of  600  miles  in  length, 
and  more  than  an  lOO  in  breadth.  And  *  of 
thefe,  (as  was  oblerved  in  my  anfwer,  pag.  156, 
to  which  the  Dodorhas  made  no  reply)  it  woulJ 
be  no  wrong  to  the  truth,  if  it  fhould  be  faid,  a 
very  confiderabie  part  went  over  to  the  church, 
not  fo  much  upon  lober  inquiry  and  real  princi- 
ple, as  from  difguft  at  the  parifn-miniiler,  or 
unhappy  prejudxes  arifmg  from  the  placing  s, 
meeiing-hoLiie,  or  fome  fuch  important  difficul- 
ty in  tiie  towns  where  they  lived.'  In  this  view 
of  the  church  uf  England,  which  is  certainly  a 
jufl:  one,  what  occafion  is  there  for  Bifhops,  at 
lead  in  ihefe  parts  of  America  ?  l.had  nothing 
^to  do  with  the  Colonics  to  the  (buthward  of 
Peunrylvania.'They  have  neither  complained  for 

wans 


APPEAL  defended;        153 

want  of  Bifnops,  or  defired  rhe  miflion  of  ihcm. 
When  this  is  the  cafe,  we  fhall  doubtlcfs  fay  that 
upon  the  matter,  which  isjufland  rtafonable. 
The  above  delcribed  feven  Colonies  only,  contain 
the  complaincrs  and  petitioners  •,  and  as  the  So- 
ciety's chief  folicitude,  as  well  as  charity,  has 
been  laid  out  to  cpifcopife  thefe  Colonics,  they 
arc  cminently,if  not  folely,  theColonies  for  which 
Bifhops  have  been  fo  carneftly  fought  after.  Buc 
the  church  of  England  mu(t  make  a  more  re- 
fpeitable  figure  in  thefe  Colonies,  before  fhc 
may  hope  for  fuch  a  fuperior  order  of  men  as 
Biil:^ops.  Will  it  become  their  dignity  to  be 
f'jpported  by  charity,  and  to  be  placed  at  the 
head  of  churches  fo  dependant  on  charity,  as 
thac  if  it  is  v/ithheld,  they  mud,  by  far  the  grea- 
ter part, of  them,  fall  into  non-exiftencc  ?  The 
church  (as  the  Dodor  loves  to  call  it — as  though 
there  was  no  other  church)  muft  wait  until  it 
arrives  at  a  flate  of  much  greater  maturity,  be- 
fore ic  will  be  worth  while  for  Bifhops  to  come 
here.  It  is  acknowledged  the  Governor,  in  mod 
of  thefeColonics,  is  commonly  in  name,  an  Epil> 
copalian  ;  though  Sometimes  deftitute  of  every 
thing  elfe  that  looks  like  religion. — Surely  fuch 
Governors  cannot  be  luppofcd  to  have  much  at 
heart  the  affair  of  an  Epifcopatc,  unlefs  they 
fhould  view  it  as  conneded  with  their  worldly 
interefl  in  one  fhapc  or  another.  Jt  is  quite  re- 
mote from  the  truth  to  fay,  that  '  molt  ef  the 
principal  perfons  in  the  Colonies'  arc  of  this 
perfuafion,  unlefa  by  principal  perfons  are 
meant,  thofe  who  ar«  appointed  to  their  civil 
pofts  from  home.  In  general  there  are  50  prin- 
cipal perfons  to  one,  in  the  Non-cpifcopal 
Colonies,  who  are  not  members  of  the  church 
of  England,  but  of  churches  of  other  denomi- 
natioiis,  U  Th^ 


154  REPLY  TO  THE 

The  Do6lor  now  leaves  me  for  a  while,  in  or- 
der, to  confider  the  obje(5tions  I  had  iiitroduced 
ias  offered  by  Dr.  Mayhew  againft'this  plan,  iri 
reply  to  a  fuppofed  high  dignitary  of  the  church 
of  England.  As  it  was  the  profefTed  defign  of 
the  *  appeal'  to  remove  objedions  againi'l  the 
Americm  Epifcopate,  *  the  faffering  thefe  ob- 
jedions to  lie  againd  it,  without  lifping  a  word 
to  takeoff  the  force  of  them,  'was  mentioned 
as  a  failure.  The  Dodor  has  excufed  himfcif 
by  faying,  '  He  had  not  feen  thefe  objedions, 
though  he  had  in  vain  made  inquiry  after  them.' 
The  fxcufe  is  '  candidly  accepted'  as  a  good 
one.  '  But  (fays  he)  what  excufe  can  Dodor 
'Chauncy  make  for  taking  no  notice  of  what  was 
powerfully  offered  by  Mr,  Apthorp  in  anfwer  to 
ihrfe  very  objedions  of  Dr.  Aiayhew  "^^  There 
is  no  need  of  making  any  excufe,  as,  in  compli- 
ance with  the  invitation  given  in  the  '  appeal,' 
my  bufinefs  v/as,  nor.  to  anfwer  objedions,  buc 
to  bring  them  that  they  might  be  anfwered  by 
the  Dodor.  Now  he  has  adopted  what  he  ima- 
gines was  '  powerfully  offered  by  Mr;  /tpthorp' 
it  is  become  proper  1  fhould  take  nciicc  of  it ; 
bur,  had  I  done  this  before,  I  might  have  been 
taxed  with  officioufnefs  ;  I  fhould  certainly  have 
aded  out  of  charader  as  an  objedor,  and  pre- 
vented myielf  in  that  which  ought  not  to  have 
been  expeded  until  now, 

Befor  E  the  Do6tor  brings  in  Mr.  Apthcrp^ 
he  fays  a  few  words, which,  I  fuppofe,  he  intended 
fhould  be  looked  upon  as  an  anfwer  to  ihe  '  ex- 
pedient I  fuggerted  ro  compromife  matters  be- 
tween Epifcopalians  and  other  denominations  in 
the  Colonies  j'  but  as  he  has  filencly  paffed  over 
vhat  I  had  largely  offered  in  illuflration  of  the 
propriety  and  reaignablenefs  of  this  expedient,  f 
'*"         "       ^  have 


^APPEAL  DEFENDEDED.'  '155 

'have  nothing  to  do  here  but  to  defire  the  reader 
■to  turn  top.  J50,  iLg^  1 60  of  the  anfwer  to 
the  'appeal  ;'  and  he  rnult  then  be  convinced,' 
that  the  Dodor,  under  the  pretence  of  faying 
foniething,  has  really  (aid  nothing. 

Now  comes  in  Mr.  Jplbcrfs  anfwer  to  Dr, 
Maybezv^s  objections.  This  anfwer  was  publifh- 
ed  before  the  Doctor's  death,  and  the  only  rea- 
fon  he  made  no  reply  to  ic  was,  that  neither  he, 
or  his  friends,  thought  in  worthy  of  fuch  notice. 
In  was,  as  they  imagined,  wrote  principally  with 
a  view  to  recommend  himrclf  to  a  certain  great 
man,  whofe  favour  might  be  advantagious  to 
him.  However,  if  he  had  been  permitted,  in 
the  alwife  government  of  Heaven,  to  have  lived 
until  this  time,  he  would,  doubtlefs,  upon  this 
oceafion,  have  pointed  out  the  utier  infuiScien- 
cy  of  this  Genilemari's  anfwer  to  his  objeflions. 
And  though  he  might  have  done  it  to  betier  pur- 
pofe  than  J  can,  divine  Providrnce  has  put  a  fa- 
tal bar  in  the  way  of  the  Public's  having  this  fa* 
tisfadion.  The  reader,  while  he  remembtrs  in 
is  the  Dodor's  friend  that  appears  in  hi:s  behalf, 
will  not  attribute  to  him  any  dcttct  he  may  dif- 
cern  in  the  vindication  of  his  objcflions. 

'The  Dodor,  (fays  Mr.  Apthorp)  affeds  to 
doubt  whether  the  fcheme  propofed  by  his  an- 
fwerer  be  not  rneerly  his  own,  inftead  of  being, 
as  is  afllTtedjthe  real  and  only  one  that  has  been 
in  view  ;  and  fays,  thset  if  this  aflertion  be  tiive^ 
be  and  others  have  been  mifinfgrmed.*  The 
reply  is,  'Let  h.s  cr  their  irformcrs  fay  on  whac 
grounds  they  have  ever  affirmed  a  diffijrent  one 
tv)  have,  been  fraiTrCd  •,  or  elfe  let  them  take 
fliame  to  themfelves  fcr  inventing  falfnoods,  or 
venring  imaginations  for  fads  ;  and  let  the 
Pjdor  fee  a  mark  on  them,  and  be  more  cauti- 
ous 


fjS  REPLY    TO  THE 

ous  whom  he  believes  hereafter.'  What  was 
faid  by  the  Dodlor  is  here  fet  in  a  very  partial 
and  unfair  light,  Inftead  of  properly  quoting 
his  words,  as  he  ufcd  them  in  a  conneded  courfc 
cf  reafoning,  this  writer  has  given  them,  or  ra- 
ther the  fcnfe  in  which  he  undertiood  them,  in  a 
difjoined  abfoluteform.  The  writer  the  Doder 
rephes  to,  »fcer  he  had  propofcd  a  fchcme  for  a 
Colony-Epiico'pate,  aillir.i-a  uSg  *  This  is  the  real 
and  only  fcheme  that  hath  been  planned  for  Bi- 
ihops  in  America  -,  and  whoever  hath  heard  of 
any  other  hath  been  mifinformed  through  mif- 
takc  or  dcfign.'  Says  the  Doctor  in  anfwer, 
*  To  fpcak  for  mvlelf,  then,  I  am  one  of  thofe 
who  have  been  thus  mif.nformed -^  and  I  know 
of  others  who  have  been  fo,  in  common  with 
ine  -r-Hc  fpeaks  of  this  fcheme  with  great  af- 
furance,  as  if  he  were  at  head-quarters^  and  cer- 
tainly  knew  ic  to  be  the  real  and  cnly  one.  ^oi- 
fibly,  this  may  be  the  care.  But  he  is  not 
known  j  nor  has  he  informed  us  upon  what 
ground  or  authority  he  goes  in  giving  this  ac- 
count of  tliC  matter.  The  declaration  of  an 
anonymous  writer,  how  confidently  foeverlie 
may  cxprefs  himfelf,  is  not,  furely,  fuffieient  to 
fatisfy  us,  that  this  is  the  true  fcheme  plann'cd. — « 
It  may  pcfh  )iy  be  only  his  own  Ichemc,  the 
fcheme  of  a  private  man  ;  and  until  it  comes 
with  better  authority,  or  in  a  more  authentic 
way,  we  may  confidcr  it  as  an  imaginary  one,' — • 
Let  Mr.  /if thorp  '  take  fhame  to  himftrlP  for 
pretending  lo  anfwer  an  objcdion,  without  fo 
much  as  faying  a  word  to  invalidate  fuch  perti- 
nent and  folid  reafoning  in  fupport  of  it.  I  can- 
not fuppofe  Dr.  ChandUr  himfelf  will  think,  that 
what  is  here  faid  is  *  powerfully  offered  ;*  tf  he 
fhould,  without  all  doubt,  the  impartial  Tublic 
will  judge  othcrwife.  He 


^APPEAL  DEFENDED/     157 

He  goes  on  to  tell  us  of  '  fucccfTive  prcpofais 
for  American  Bifhops,  made  at  different  xiines, 
through  a  long  eouifc  of  years,  by  men  of  high 
rank  and  charafler  in  the  church  5  all  which 
agree  with  tvhat  the  aniwertr  has  avered.'  He 
like  wife  gives  us  at  large  ^  Bifhop  Butler's 
fch-:me,  as  one  '  that  might  have  peculiar  v;eighc 
with  the  Dodor  ;'  and  ipeaks  of  it  as  exadlly  (i- 
milar  to  that  in  the  anfwer  to  his  obfervations.* 
"What  is  all  this  to  the  purpofc  ?  We  know,  and 
the  Dodor  knew,  there  has  long  been  a  dt^ign 
to  introduce  Bifhops  into  the  Colonies,  and  that 
plans  have  been  formed  to  accomplifh  this  defign. 
Butfliould  there  have  been  a  general  agreement  in 
thefe  plans,  they  may  be  nothing  mdre  than  the 
fchemes  of  private  men  ;  and  this  indeed  is  the 
truth  of  fadl.  They  are  not  to  be  looked  on  as 
fchemes  fet  forth  upon  the  foot  oi proper  autho- 
rity. The  planners  of  them  had  no  fuch  au- 
thority \  and  whatever  they  might  intend,  or 
pretend,  if  ever  an  Epifcopate  is  authoritatively 
fettled  in  America,  it  may  be,  for  aught  any  or 
all  of  them  can  fay,  upon  a  plan  very  dilFerenc 
from  that  which  they  have  propofed.  Mr.  Ap- 
thorp  is  pleafed  to  fay  of  the  propofed  plan, 
'  That  it  is  fuch  a  fmiple  and  beautiful  plan  of 
the  mod  antient  and  moderate  Epifcopacy,  than 
it  fhould,  not  only  remove  all  the  Doctor's  ap- 
prehenfions,  but  the  fcruples  of  every  rational 
and  learned  Diflenter  againd:  that  apoftolic  form 
of  government.'  Where  does  this  writer  find, 
in  any  of  apoftolic  epiftles,  the  model  of  an  epif- 
copate without  any  authority  to  govern  the  JLa- 
ity  ?  Let  him,  if  he  can,  produce  a  text,  in  any 
part  of  the  new-teftamenc,  wherein  ruling  the 
Clergy,  in  dijlinBion  from  the  Laity^  is  made  the 
proper  work  of  Bilhops.     He  would  likewixc  do 

what 


J5S  REPLY  TO  THE 

what  was  never  done  before,  if  he  would  point 
out  that  part  of  the  chriftian  word,  where  the 
Biihop's  diocefs,  in  the  '  moft  ancient  times,'  ex- 
tended an  hundred  miles  in  breadth,  and  feveral 
hundred  in  length.  Until  he  it  able  to  prove, 
that  fuch  was  '  the  moil  antient  Epifcopacy,'  no 
rational  or  IcarnedDiiTenter  2gainft  the  propofed 
plan,  will  entertain  an  opinion  of  it  as,  in  any 
meaiure/ agreeing  wich  the  '  apoftolic  form  of 
government.'  This  Gentleman  has  not  difco- 
vered  here  the  mod  intimate  acquaintance,  with 
either  xhe  apoltolic  Epifcopacy,  or  that  which 
look  place  fin  the  mott  antient  times. 

He  goes  on,  ^  Suppofing  this  to  be  the  real 
fcheme,  the  Dodtor  owns  that  it  jets  the  matter 
in  a  lefs  exceptionable  point  of  vitw,  than  he  had 
Teen  it  in  before.'  Very  trtie  -,  and  I  am  ready 
to  own  the  fame  thing.  But  this  does  not  make 
the  fcheme  unexceptionable.  He  now  com^ 
•plains,  '  The  Doctor  cannot  forbear  going  fif- 
ty years  back  to  ridicule  fome  harmiels,  though 
ill  chofen,  phrases,  in  v/hich  the  fubftancc  of  ic 
[the  fcheme  J  is  expreiTed.'  As  he  had  occafioa 
to  fpeak  of  the  Society's  abilradl,  printed  in 
1715,  in  which,  among  other  reafons  for  an 
Epifcopate  in  the  Colonies,  '  the  blefling  ail 
manner  of  people  fufceptible  of  kich  holy  im- 
preffions  as  arc  n:j.acle  by  the  impofuioh  of  the 
BiQiops  hands/  is  particularly  mentioned  ;  ic 
will,  I  believe,  be  thought  excufabie  in  him,  if 
he  has  called  this  a  matter^  fubhme,  mytlenous 
and  lacrec],'  pafiing  it  over  with  nothing  more 
than  a  contemptuous  fneer.  But,  fays  this  wri- 
ter, '  He  well  knows,  or  eafily  m^,  that  we 
afcribe  no  more  efficacy  to  the  laying  on  of  Bi^ 
fhops  hands,  then  his  brethren  do  to.  the  laying 
on  of  Pfcfbyter's  hands.'     The  Doctor  could  not 

poiubly 


^APPEAL  DEFENDEt).*        159- 

poffibly  know  this,  becaufe  it  is  not  the  truth  of 
fad:.       Mr.  Aphorp  muft   be  very  ignorant  of 
the  fentiments  of  Non  epifcopalians,  if  he  does 
not  know,  that  we  conceive  quite  differently  of 
the    laying  on  cf  Prefbyters    hands,  from  what 
many,  at  kali,  of  the  church  of  England  do  of 
the  laying  on    cf  Billiops  hands.     Do  Epifcopa- 
lians never  fpeak  of  an  indelible  chara5ler  as  im- 
prefled    by  the    Bifi:iop's    hand  in  ordination  ? 
Do  they  never  lead  people  to  think,   as  if  there 
was  an  inftituted  ccnnedlion  between  the  impp- 
fition  of  his   hand    in  confirmation,  and  the   be- 
flowmenrof  the  Spirit  in  his  gracious  influences  ? 
Thefe  are   the  falle  and  ridiculous  notions  they 
deride,  not  ordination  or  confirmation,  mcerly  as 
fuch,  by  the  laying  on  of  Bifhops  hands.     And, 
perhaps,  ridicule  is  the  fittefl  v/ay  in  which  fuch 
myfterioufly  facred  matters  can  be  treated.     Nei- 
ther Dr.  Mayhev),  or  any  of  his  brethren,  objecSt 
to  the  performance  of  the  ofRces  of  ordination  or 
confirmation  by   perfons  of  that  order,  to  which 
Epifcopalians    conceive     they   are   committed/ 
But,    fays  this  v^riter,    '  The  Doclor  thinks  we 
are   poffcfTed     fufficierttly    of    the     v/hole  ex- 
ercife   cfour  religion,  becaufe  our  young  peo- 
ple m.ay  be  confirmed,  and  Clergymen  ordained 
for  us,  and  properly  infpedted  afterwards  •,  pro- 
vided they  will  all  ^o  from  America  to  Europe 
for  thefe   purpofes.      Can  he  fay  with  a  good 
confcience,  that  liberty  like  this  is  all  he  fhould 
defire  for  himfeif,   and  his  brethren  ?'  And  here 
he  is  intreated  ^  to  read  over  fome  words  of  his 
anfwerer,  to  which  he  has  made  no  reply'.     The 
words   are   thefe  -,    '  The   American   DifTenters 
from  our   communion,  would  think  it  infuppor- 
tably  grievous  to  have  no  minifters,  but  fuch  as 
received  ordination  in  England  or  Ireland  ^  or 
'^     '.       ~  '     ■  "  to 


,6o  REPLY   TO    THE 

to  be  witheld  from  the  ufe  of  any  religious  rite, 
which  they  edeemed  as  highly  as  we  do  confir- 
mation -,  or  to  have  their  church  deftitute  of  a 
fuper-intendency,  which  ihey  conceived  to  be 
of  apoftolical  infticucion.  I  (hould  in  fuch  s  cafe 
be  a  zealous  advocate  for  them,  as  not  yet  en- 
joying the  full  toleration  to  which  they  had  a 
right.  And  furely  they  ought  to  afk  their  con- 
fciences  very  feriou fly,  why  they  oppofc  oui^  ap- 
plication for  fuch  indulgence,  as  they  would 
claim  for  themfelves  ;  and  whether  indeed  fuch 
oppofition  is  not  downright  perfecution  ,  and 
that  in  a  matter  meetly  ipiritual,  wiihout  the 
mixture  of  any  temporal  concern'.  The  rea- 
fon  why  the  Do(fl:or  made  no  reply  to  thefe  words 
was,  not  becaufe  '  lihey  admit  of  none,'  but  be-, 
caule  they  are  quite  befide  the  cafe  in  difpute. 
The  American  Non^epifcopalians  neither  enjoy 
or  defire  to  enjoy,  any  other  liberty  than  to 
provide  iuch  Pallors,  to  officiate  in  fuch  ferviccs 
among  them,  as  they  think  are  agreablc  to  the 
word  of  GOD.  Such  liberty  is  equally  poffclTed 
by  Epiicopalians.  If  the  other  denominations 
more  tuHy  and  conveniently  enjoy  the  exercife 
of  their  religion,  ii  is  not  in  the  lead  meafure 
owing  to  their  being  favoured  v/ith  greater  li- 
berty, but  to  their  greater  care  of  thtmfelves 
^iindcr  that  permijfion^  which ^  rs  equally^  granted, 
to  ail  denominations.  If  there  is  any  oatz  purtly 
Jpiritual  privilege,  which  Epifcopalians  do  not  as 
iully  enjoy  as  any  of  the  other  denominations, 
it  is  owing  to  themfelves,  and  not  to  any  want 
of  liberty  in  this  refped:.  Their  liberty  is  pre- 
cifeiy  the  fame  with  che  liberty  of  the  other  per- 
fuafions.  Was  it  not,  1  fhould  be  as  '  zealous 
an  advocate  for  them,'  as  this  Gentleman  could 
be  for  us  under  like  circun^ftances  j  as  thinking 

thac 


^APPEAL  D  EFENDED.'      i^i 

that  they  were  hardly  ufed.  The  true  reafon 
v/hy  Epifcopalians  do  not  as  fully  enjoy  the 
excrcife  of  their  religion,  as  the  other  denomina- 
tions is,  not  becauTe  they  are  not  poirefTed  of 
equal  liberty,  but  becaufe  ihey  do  not  make  the 
lil^  full  ufeofic.  Thefe  other  denominations 
would  continue  until  dooms-day  without  Paftors 
to  officiate  in  any  rel'gious  fervice  among  them, 
if  they  waited  for  their  mifTion  from  the  fiaie  ^t 
home:  Nor  would  they  complain  ofrhisas  a 
burden,  much  lefs  an  iftfupportable  one.  ih-y 
are  intirely  fatisfied,  as  they  have  the  gra.it  of 
liberty  to  provide  for  themfelves  the  full  enjoy- 
ment of  all  the  fpiritual  privileges  of  the  King- 
dom of  CHRIS r.  Epifcopalians  arc  equally 
partakers  in  the  fame  granted  liberty  5  and  they 
Ihould  be  contented  herewith,  and  not  complain 
of  it  as  an  iniuperable  hardlhip,  that  the  JIats 
at  home  does  not  furnifh  them  with  Biiliops  iti 
order  to  the  eompleat  cxercife  of  their  religion^ 
Did  chriftian  churches  Jn  the  firn:  ages  of  the 
gofpcl,  make  fuch  complaints  ?  If  they  might 
be  permitted  to  provide  fpiritual  officers  for  the 
fpiritual  fervices  of  chiiilianity,  it  v/as  all  they 
dcfired  \  and  it  is  all  that  can  reafonably  be  de- 
fired  at  this  day.  And  fuch  permiffion  is  as 
compleatly  enjoyed  by  Epifcopalians,  as  by  any  of 
the  other  denominations  on   the   Continent, 

Mr.  Apthorp  proceeds,  *  The  Dodlor,  (till 
flying  to  ridicule  in  defcdl  of  argument,  inti- 
mates, how  much  the  Epifcopalians  in  America 
need  to  be  welt  ruled  and  gov  erne  d--^\\ow  much. 
the  Clergy  need  to  be  united^  and  reduced  10  cr^ 
der\  The  Dodtor  did  not  undertake  to  argue 
upon  thefe  things,  as  is  here  fuggefted.  He 
purpofely  avoided  it,  left:  he  ftiould  not  '  exprefs 
himfclf  with  quite  fo  much  gravity  and  fulemni* 


i62  REPLY  TO  TH   E 

ty'  as  ibme  might  think  proper.  It  is  not  there- 
fore eafy  to  accoun^t  for  this  remark  upon  what 
the  Doctor  mentioned  in  tranfiru  only,  unlefs  it 
was  that  occafion  might  be  herefrom  taken  to  teil 
us,  'that  the  Ametican  Clergy  are  unanimous  in 
their  wiilies  to  be  under  the  immediate  infpedion 
of  Bifliops  refidcnt  among  ,them  i  v/hich  con-  , 
cOrrence  implies  quite  the  contrary  ;o  a  prqfent 
difurdeily"  fiate  of  that  Clergy'.  That  thofe 
among  the  Clecgf,  who  petitioned  for  Bifnops 
are  '  UHanimous"  at  leaft  in  pretence^  in  their 
widies  to  have  them,  is  not  dilputed  -,  bOc  that 
the  wfeole  American  Clergy  are  thus,  unanimous 
is  far  from  being  a>'  known'  facl.  No  evidence 
has  yet'  been  gi'^cn,  that  the  Clergy,  any  mere 
t=han  the  Laity,  in  thofe  Colonies  which  are  cal- 
led Epilcopal,  are  at  all  defirous  of  being  upder^ 
the  'imm.ediatc  in.rpex^lion  of  Bifhops' ;,  nor  is  it 
thought  to  be  a  fa^ft  capable  of  being  evidence^. 
How  Ian  this  may  imply  '  a  prefent  difcj-deriy 
Hate  of  that  Clergy',  I  leave  with  this  wri  er  to 
fay.  He  adds,  with  reference  to  the  Am^^ricanr 
tpifcopal  Clergy  in  commoi^,  *  they  are,  perhaps, 
as  faithful  to  their  trull:,  and  as  blamelefs  in  their 
manners,  as  any  body  of  men  in  the  chriftian 
miniilry'.  It,  would  give  me  real  and  great  plea- 
fure,  was  1  as  fully  fatisficd  of  thi^,  as  this 
w  Iter  feems  to  be.-^ 

He  now  brings  in  the  Doclor  faying,  'great 
inconveniences  are  likely  to  follow  from  the  fen- 
ding Bidiops  to  America' ;  and  then  anfwcrs, 
'  He  fays  alfo,  it  is  readily  owned  that  our  appre- 
henfion  of  what  may  poflibly  or  probably  be  xjfiQ 
confequences  of  it,  ought  not  to  put  us  oil' in- 
fringing the  religious  liberty  of  our  fellow-fub- 
jedts  and  chrlllian  brethren.  Nay,  he  adds,  nei- 
ther have  we  any  power  to  do  to,  if  wc  were 

^'  unnafonabh 


^APPEAL  DEFENDEDED.'    1^3 

unreafoncihle  and  wicked  enough  to  defire  it  ;  our 
charter  granting  fuch  liberty  to  all  protejlants^. 
What  now  is  the  confcquence  of  thefe  conceQi- 
ons  ?  '  Therefore,  fays  this  writer,  Bifhops  may, 
by  that  charter,  fettle  even  in  New-England'. 
So  purely  fpiritual  Bifhops  might  without  it,  or 
in  any  part  of  the  chriftian  world,-  in  virtue  of 
that  liberty  wherewith  CHRIST  has  made  the 
profefibrs  of  his  religion  free.  It  follows,  '  And 
if  the  having  BiQiops  among  th>=m  bt  part  of  the 
religious  liberty  of  the  Epifcopalians,  asirevi* 
dentlyis;  the  Diflenters  ought  not  to  oppofc  it* 
on  account  of  apprehended  conftquenes'.  There 
is  a  great  and  wide  difference  (as  has  been  abun- 
dantly proved)  between  purely  fpiritual-  Bifhops, 
arid  fuch  Bifhops  as  are  fpecified  in  the  propokd 
plan.  We  make  no  oppodtion  to  Bifnops  that 
have  '  authority  altogether  from  CHRIST,  and 
not  the  date'..  If  we  oppofe  BiQiops  of  a  contra- 
ry fpecies,  we  oppofe  no  part  of  that  epifcopal 
liberty  which  is  RELIGIOUS  ;  and  lliould  greac 
inconveniences  be  likely  to  follow  from  the  fen- 
ding fuch  Bifnops,  oppofition  to  their  miffioa 
would,  on  this  account,  be  highly  reafonabIe,and 
not  the  leaftinfringenienton  religious  liberty. 
But,  fays  this  writer,  *  What  are  the  bad 
confequenccs  apprehended  l\  He  anfwers,  '  Bi- 
fhops,- the  Dodor  tells  us,  are  ambitious  and 
unquiet'.  In  reply  whereto  he  fays,  '  So  are 
Picfoytcrs,  and  all  forts  of  ffeen  too  often.'  Bus 
this  proves  nothing,  unlcfs  he  could  have  faid 
further,  that  their  fphereof  influence  was  equally 
extenfive,  in  confequence  of  which  there  was 
equal  danger,  from  their  intrieguing  with  great 
men  at  home,  or  with  Governors  and  principal 
mtn  here,  of  carrying  into  execution  luch  fchcmes 
^s  might  be  gready  hurtful,  both  in  a  civil  and 


r£iigious 


lS4r  REPLY  TO  THE 

religious  ^tnCe*  li  follows,  '  The  Do6lor  will 
own  that  Bifhops  are  now,  and  long  have  been 
ss  quiet  an  order  of  men  as  any  in  the  nation.' 
He  will  be  far  from  owning  this,  '  if  it  be  true, 
as  many  affirm  [thefe  are  the  Dodor's  words,  p. 
64]  that  i'ijs^b  church  \tory-principks  are  lately  re- 
'vived'm  England,  and  greatly  favoured  by  iome, 
whofe  influence  may  go  far  towards  bringing 
them  into  as  much  reputation,  as  they  have  been 
in    difgrace  fince  ihe  death  of  Queen  Ann,^ 

The  Dodtor  had  faid,  ^Let  hs  fuprofe,  that 
Bifhops  are  to  be  at  firfi  fent  to  America  with 
fuch  limited  powers  [as  are  mentioned  in  the 
propofed  plan,]  to  refide  in  the  epifcopal  Colo- 
nies, and  to  have  no  concern,  but  with  Eplfco- 
palians.  Have  we  fufficient  ground  to  think,  that 
they  and  their  fucceiTors  would,  to  the  day  of 
doom,  or  for  a  long  time,  remain  contented^with 
fuch  powers,  or  under  luch  limitations  ?  In  a 
word,  that  they  would  continue  fuch  inoffcnfive 
harmiefs  creatures  as  this  Gentleman  fuppo^ 
fes.'- — To  this  the  reply  is,  *  Who  knows  whe- 
ther the  New-Engjandlers  will  not  hang  Qua- 
kers and  Witche*  again  V  It  is  conceded,  no  one 
knows  that  they  will  not,  Ihould  the  propofed 
mifnon  of  Bifliops  take  place;  for,  in  England, 
where  there  is  no  complaint  for  v/ant  of  Bilhops, 
both  Quakers  and  Witches  have  been  hanged 
in  much  greater  numbers  than  they  ever  were 
here.  This  writer  goes  on  '  The  Clergy  of  En- 
gland are  in  general  friends  to  religious  free- 
dom :  The  people  o^England,  Whigs  an4  To- 
ries, are  unfavourable  to  clerical  power  •,  and  a 
far  greater  danger,  than  the  Dodtor's  imagi- 
fiary  one,  is  that  of  their  laying  afide  all  regard 
to  the  chriftian  miniilry,  and  to  chriflianity  it-- 
felf.'  The  Dodlor  himfelf,  in  anfv/ering  a  like 
leply  of  his  Antagoiiiil,  fully  anfwered  what  is 

here 


<^APPEAL  DEFENDED/        Us 

herefaid  •,  though  this  writer,  inflead  of  attend- 
ing to  ic  as  he  ought,  has  only  repeated,  in  cf- 
fed,  the  fame  thing  over  again.  I  have  nothing 
therefore  to  do  here,  but  to  quote  the  Dodor'a 
own  words.  Says  he,  '  All  this  being  taken  for 
granted,  yet  may  not  times  alter,  and  adminiftra* 
tions  change  ?  Who  knows  what  the  next  reign 
and  adminiftration  may  be  ?  or  whether  attempts 
towards  an  oppreiTive  enlargement  of  power, 
may  not  be  as  much  encouraged,  ae  it  is  fup- 
pofed  they  would  be  frowned  on,  during  the 
prefent  ?'  Mr.  Apthorp  fays  further,  *  There 
never  was  fo  little  prorpe(5l,  that  a  fpirit  of  reli- 
gious intolerance  would  revive  here/  that  is,  in 
England.  I  heartily  wifii  there  was  no  reafon 
to  fufped  the  truth  of  what  is  here  affirmed.. 
He  goes  on,  '  If  it  fliould,  ic  might  not  extend 
to  New-England— But  even  fuppofing  it  to 
reach  thither,  the  effe6is  would  be  very  little 
by  the  circumHance  of  no  BiOiop  being  already 
placed  in  America.' — The  Doctor  ftiall  fpcak 
for  himfelf  here  alfo.  Says  he^,  '  We  are  cer- 
tainly much  more  fecure  againft  fuch  opprcilion 
in  the  abfence  of  Bifhops,  than  we  (hould  be  if 
they  were  once  fixed  here.  0^7?^  principiis  was 
never  thought  an  ilimaxim  by  wife  men,'  and  fo 
on,  with  pertinency,  the  beft  part  of  a  page  ;  all 
which,  this  writer  has  bsen  fo  wife  as  to  pafs  over 
in  filence.  But,  fays  he,  ^  The  whole  appre- 
henfion  [of  bad  confequences]  is  groundlefsV 
And  why  ?  '  The  Engliih  DifTenters,  who  have 
fix  and  twenty  Bifiiops  eftabiiftied  among  them 
fear  no  harm  from  them.  Why  then  fhould 
the  New-England  DifTenters  fear  any,  if  one  or 
two  fliould  be  eftablidied,  with  much  lefs  pow- 
er, in  one  or  two  neighbouring  Provinces  ?'  It 
is  more  than  this  wricer  knows,  that  the  DifTen- 
ters 


166  REPLY    TO  THE 

ters  at  home  *  fear  no  harm  :'  or  fbould  this  be 
true,  it  is  far  from  being  fo  that  they  fuffer 
none.  They  now  are,  and  ever  will  be,  in  fuf- 
fering  circumftances  -,  unlefs  the  eRablifhmenn 
of  the  church  of  England  is  difiblved,  or  great- 
ly altered  from  what  it  is  at  prefcnt.  And  there 
is  nothing  felt  or  feared  by  DifTenters  at  home, 
but  we,  in  this  pare  of  the  world,  may  feel,  or 
have  reafon  to  fear,  fhould  the  defired  Bidiops 
be  fent  to  the  Colonics.  The  paragraph  we  have 
been  confidering  is  thus  concluded,  '  So  public 
a  declaration  as  has  been  made  of  the  model  of 
Epifcopacy,  propofed  to  be  foDowed  in  Ame- 
rica, will  itfelf  be  an  effedlual  barrier  againft  any 
undue  extenfionof  ecclcfiaftical  power  •,  of  which 
the  Do6lor  aftetfts  to  be  fo  apprehenfive,'  This 
being  a  mcer  naked,  unfupported  affirmation, 
nothing  more  is  needful  to  be  faid  upon  it,  than 
only  to  affirm  the  diredl  contrary,  that  it  will  not 
be  an  effedual  barrier,  and  that  the  Do^^or  did 
not  affedl  to  be  apprehenfivc,  but  really  was  foj 
and  upon  juft  grounds. 

The  Dodtor  obferved,  *  If  Bifhops  are  fent  to 
America,- they  mud  be  well  fupported  ;  this  is 
beyond  doubt.  By  whom  ?  or  by  what  means  I' 
And  here  he  largely  argued  to  fhow  it  to  be 
highly  probable, '  that  it  would  be,  if  not  at  firft, 
yet  in  time,  by  a  tax  laid  on  the  Colonies  to*  this 
end/  Among  other  things,  he  pertinently  Re- 
marked, '  If  Bifhops  were  fpeedily  to  be 
fent  to  America,  it  Teems  not  wholly  improba- 
ble from  what  we  hear  of  the  unufual  tenor 
of  fome  late  parliamentary  a(5ls  and  bills, 
for  raifing  money  'on  the  poor  Colonies 
without  their  confent,^  that  provifion  might  be 
made  for  the  fupporrrof  thefe  Bifhops,  if  not  of 
all  the  church^ckfgy  alfo,  in  the  fame  way,'    To 

ail 


'APPEAL  DEFENDED/     iSy 

all  which  Mr.  Apthorp  is  pleafed  to  give  us 
the  following  weighty  anfwer,  '  If  no  proper 
maintenance  can  be  found  for  themjhe  needs  not 
be  uneafy  at  the  projedl:  of  fending  them  \  andthac 
it  is  not  to  be  at  the  expence  of  the  Colonies,  he 
has  feen  in  Bifhop  Butler'^  fchcme,  with  which 
the  others  agree*  It  is  not  poffiblc  any  one 
iliould  have  a  conception  of  the  pertinency,  force, 
and  elegance  of  the  Do(5]:or's  obje^lion,  as  fee 
forth  at  large  in  his  reafoning  upon  it,  by  read- 
ing only  tnis.curfory,  flighty,  and,  I  may  fay, 
trifling  anfwer  to  it. 

Among  the  inconveniences  that  might  refulc 
from  the  appointment  of  Bifliops  in  America,  the 
Dc^cr  mentioned  ihefe,  'That,  by  the  increafeof 
theepifcopal  party [v/hich  might  becfFeded  by  this 
appointment,  and  is  doubtlefs  one  principal  rea- 
fon  why  it  is  fo  much  defired]  they  might  get  a 
majority  in  our  houfes  of  aflTembly  j  that,  in  con- 
fequence  thereof,  the  church  of  England  mighc 
become  the  cftabliflied  religion  of  all  thefe  Co- 
lonies •,    that  a  facraraental   tcfl:,    or  fomething 
like  it,  might  cnfue,  to  exclude  Non  •coaformifl.4 
from  places,  preferment,  and  civil  oflices,  ai  in 
England  ;    and  that  taxes  might  be  impofed  on 
us  all  in  common,  for  the  maintenance  of  thcfe 
Bifliops,  and  the  epifcopal  Clergy'. — Upon  theie 
inconveniences  the  Dodor  argued  largely,  clofe- 
ly,   and  cogendy.      What  now   fays  Mr.    Ap- 
thorp?  In   taking  notice   of  this   objedion,    he 
does  as   he  had  all  along  done  before,  that   is, 
contents  himlelf  with  nibling  at  here  and  there 
a  fentence  which  he  is  pleafed  to  pick  out, with- 
out concerning  himfelf  with  the  Doctor's  whole, 
reafoning  in  connexion.     Let  us  take  a  view  of 
his  reply.     Says  he/  The  Dodtor  imagines,  that 
appointing  Bifhops  in  America  would  probably 

incrcafc 


i68.  REPLY  TO  THE 

ificreafe  the  cpifcopal  party  there  ;  and  theit 
great  evils  might  follow.'  What  a  poor,  lame,- 
jank  reprelcntation  is  this  of  what  the  Do61or 
had  offered  !  However,  let  us  attend  to  what 
follows.  '  I  cannqt  difcern  in  what  other  way- 
it  can  increafe  their  party,  than  by  fupplying 
them  more  cafily  with  a  competent  number  of 
mmifters  ;  taking  care  that  thefe  minifters  fhould 
be  diligent  and  exemplary  ;  arid  prcmoting  arj 
early  fenfe  of  piety  among  their  young  people, 
Thefe  are  no  evils/— The  Dodor  never  lifped 
a  woid  in  complaint  of  them  as  fuch.  Btrt  fure- 
]y  this  writer's  knowledge  of  mankind  is  very 
fcanty,  if  he  is  cap;.ble  ot\'  difceining'  no  other 
ways,  than  thefe  he  has  fpecified,  in  which  the 
cpifcopal  party  m'.ght  be  increafcd.  Would 
the  glare  of  epifcopai  dignity  have  no  influence 
upon  fome  fore  of  perfons  ?  Would  the  con- 
nedtion  of  American  Biihops  with  thofe  at  home, 
and  their  power  with  great  men  there,' have 
no  effed  upon  the  Tons  of  this  world,  who  might 
have  in  viev;  this  or  the  other  pod  of  honor  or 
profit  ?  A  variety  of  other  ways  might  eafily  be 
mentioned,  wherein  the  epifcopai  party  might 
be  increafed — But  I  forbear.  He  goes  on, 
*  The  Doctor  indeed  fays,  that  pretexts  might 
cafily  be  found  for  enlarging  the  power  of  thefe 
Biihops,  and  increafing  the  number.'  The  re- 
ply is,  ^  But  enlarging  their  power  would  imme- 
diately raife  a  clamour  that  could  not  be  wiih- 
jlood.'  Is  not  this  as  good  a  reafon,  at  leaft  a 
very  good  one,  why  they  fhould  not  be  fcnt  at 
all,'unlefs  with  fuch  powers  as  are  '  altogether 
from  CHRIST,not  from  the  ftate  P'  Should  they 
be  fent,  would  it  not  raife  a  clamour  ?  Andif  it 
could  be  withftood,  it  would  not,  perhaps,  be 
with  To  much  cafe  as  fomc  may  be  ready  to  ima- 
gine 


APPEAL  DEFENDED/        16^ 

gine.  But  '  if  a.  few  Bifhops  proved  difagrcca- 
bic,  more  would  not  be  added.*  This  is  more  than 
this  Gentleman  knows,  or  has  any  authority  to 
affirm.  Nay,  *  though  they  (hou Id  prove  agree* 
able  and  ufeful,  more  would  be  fcnt  only  to  fuch 
Provinces  as  chofe  them/  Perhaps,  by  Pro- 
vinces are  meant  the  comparatively  few  Epifco- 
palians  that  live  in  them  ;  and  by  their  choice 
of  Bifhops,  their  being  contented  with  having 
them  fent  to  them  :  In  this  fenre,it  may  be  true, 
'  more  Bifhops  would  be  fent  only  to  fuch  Pro- 
vinces as  chofe  them'  ;  but,  in  the  common  and 
ordinary  fenfe  in  which  thefc  words  are  under* 
ilood,  it  is  not  true,  that  even  the  firft  propofcd 
Bifnops  would  be  fent,  or  chofen,  by  any  Pro- 
vince on  the  Continent.  It  follows,  '  In  the 
fhort  ftay  which  one  of  them  would  choofe  to 
make  in  New-England,  he  would  not  bring  over 
many  pcrlons  to  our  church.  And  therefore 
how  terrible  things  foever  Epifcopalians,  if  they 
Ihould  become  the  majority,  may  attempt  and 
perform  there,  they  will  be  almoll,  if  not  quite 
as  likely  to  accomplifh,  without  a  Bifliop  a- 
mong  them,  as  with  feeing  one  now  and  then.* 
If  Bifhops  were  fent,  though  New-England  (hould 
not  be,  at  firft,  the  place  of  their  refidence,  in 
would  be  the  dioce/s  of  one  of  them  ;  and  though, 
when  he  came  upon  a  vifitation,  he  mighc 
•  chufe  to  make  but  a  fhort  ftay,'  he  would,  by 
reafon  of  his  fuperiority  in  dignity  and  influence^ 
be  able  to  efFedt  more  *  terrible  things'  than  all 
the  Epifcopalians  put  together,  fliould  they  be 
the  majority.  Moft  certainly,  he  would  not  be 
fuch  a  Biftiop  as  is  defired,  if  this  '  majority^ 
would  be  '  almoft,  if  not  quite,  as  likely'  to  ac- 
complifh their  fchemes  *  without  ever  feeing 
him,  as  with  feeing  him  now  and  then.*      This 


1^0  REPLY   TO    THE 

writer  would  make  us  believe,  if  Epifcopalians, 
by  becoming  the  majority,  '  had  power,  there  is 
no  reafon  to  think  they  would  be  oppreiTive  ; 
for  they  are  not  opprefTu'e  in  the  Colonics  where 
they  adually  have  it  .;  Or  that  they,  would  at- 
temptyfor  they  could  not  with  any  modefty,  or 
any  hope  of  fucctfs',  fuch  hws  againft  the  Dtf- 
fenrers,  as  the  Diilenters  have  not  attempted 
againft  them/  Is  an  eRablirnment,  obliging 
Diffenters  to  pay,in  common  with  Epifcopalians, 
towards  the  fupport  df  the  church  of  England, 
no  degree  of  opprcfilon  ?  Such  an.  cltabiifn- 
menn  has  been  attempied  '  v/ith  fuccefs,' if  not 
with  *  modefty'  in  of.e  or  two  of  the  Colonies, 
where  Epifcopalians  are  the  m.sjority  ; — Nay,  e- 
ven  in  ' New- York,  v/hcre  there  are  ten  to  one 
that  are  not  Epifcopalians,  eptfcopal  art  and  po- 
licy, if  1  have  not  been  mifinformed,  has  fubjec- 
ttd  one  County  to  this  fame  kind  of  opprcffion. 
So  thatjinftcad  of  there  being  no  reafon  to  think 
there  would  be  fuch  opprefih'e  efiabliiliments  in 
all  the  Colonies,  there  is  the  higheft  reafon  to 
think  this  would  be  the  cafe,  if  Epifcopalians 
llioufd  become  the.  majority.  It  is  added,  if 
the  zeal  of  the  New-England  Clergy  threatens 
any  danger,  Bidiops  Vv'ouid  temper  it,  as  they 
have  doi)e  in  E,ngland,  inftead  of  inflaming  it.' 
It  would  ttnd  greatly  to  the  eafe  of  our  minds, 
if  this  rould  he  as  ftrongly  proved,  as  it  is  here 
aBirrrved.  Bifliops  have  not  been  rem>arkable,  in 
any  ages  that  are  pall,  for  *  tempering,  inilead  of 
ir.Piaming',  a  zeai  in  theic  Clergy  that  portended 
danger. 

Upon  the  whole,  it  appears,  that  this  writer 
had  no  good  foundation  for  his  hope,  '  that  the 
Dodor  v/ould,  on  confidering  further,  endea- 
vour to  recOiicile  his  Countrymen  to  the  admif- 
«  fion 


«      APPEAL  DEFENDED/      '171 

fion  of  BilKops* ;  that  is,  fuch  Bifhops  as  ihe-plan 
propofes ''fiibDld  be  fent  to  the  Colonies.  Far 
from  being  in  the  ieall  dit'pofcd  to  this,  he  was 
abundantly  confirmed  in  the  reafonableriefs  of 
what  he  had  wroee  to  prevent  fuch  a  recon- 
ciliation, by  the  weaknefsof  this  lame  effort  t6 
remove  away  the  objections  he  had  made  againd 
the  planned  American  Epifcopate, 

,DocTO?  Chandler  now  appears  again  in  per- 
;ibn,  and  iVemingly  pleafed,    chat  the  offered  ob- 
jedions  could,    V. within    a  tnnch    fmalier  com- 
pafs,  be  anfwered  and  confuted.'     Without  all 
doubt,  was   he    to  be  the.judge,  the  confutati- 
on would    be   accounted  abfolutely    complete  t, 
but,  it  is  10  be  renacmbered,  not  he,  but  the  iaf- 
parcial  Public  are  the  determiners   in  this  cafe  : 
and,  poiTibly  they  may  think,  the  feeble  attempt 
he  has  made  to  invalidate  thefe  objections,  is  i-a- 
iher  a  confirmation,  than  a  confutation  of  them. 
I  COMPLAINED   of  the  Dofior  for  giving  us 
only  a  long  ft  ring  bf  needlefs  quefticns,  inltead 
of  good  reafoning,  in  order  to  juftify  the  propo- 
.fed  plan   for   an   American   Epifcopate.      This 
took  up  one  paragraph.     In  the  next,   my  de- 
mand was,  '  What  right  have  they  to  this  Epif- 
copate ?   How  came  they  by  it*  ?    And   here  I 
.was  explicit  and  large  in  endeavouring  to  fhovv, 
that  they  had  no  fuch  right.      What   fays   the 
Do6lor  ?  He   replies,  '  I  am  unable  to  account 
for  lo  great  a  confufion  of  idt^as  as  difcoyers  it- 
felf  in   thefe  t\vo  paragraphs.'     If  the   firft  of 
thefe  paragraphs    '   dlfcQ,vers  any   confufion   of 
ideas,'   it    mult    be  a  confu(ion  of  them  in    his 
own  mind,  or  in.his  manner  of  exprcfllng  them  ; 
for  it  was  nothing  more  than  a  repetition  of  his 
own   queftions,    with  this  application  of  ihenis 
""_^  Surely  he  could  not. imagine,  that  any  man  c«f 

good 


i;2  REPLY    TO  THE 

good  underftanding  would  be  otherwife  moved 
by  them, than  to  wonder  he  fhould  only  harangue, 
when  ic  was  his  bufinefs  to  argue  !'   As  to  the 

*  confufion'  in  the  other  paragraph,  it  is  no- 
where dilcovered,  unlefs  in  what  he  has  faid  up* 
on  it.  And,  in  truth,  his  arguing  here  very  evi- 
dently difcovers,  that  his  conceptions  of  it  were 
indiliind,  or  rather  that  he  did  not  underftand 
it  ;  though  it  was  expreifed  as  clearly  and  fully 
3S  any  thing  that  was  offered  on  the  controvtr- 
fy.  Dr.  Cbauncy,  fays  he,  '  fcems  very  ftrenu- 
ous  to  deny  that  the  church  of  England  inAme- 
rica  has  any  right  to  the  Epifcopate  propofed  ; 
but  then  he  declares  himfelf  perfedly  willing  we 
Jhould  have  it.'  It  is  iinpoiTible,  if  he  had  en- 
tertained in  his  mind  a  clear  and  juffc  concep- 
tion of  what  I  had  fald,  that  he  fhould  affirm  '  I 
Jiad  declared  myfelf  perfedlly  willing  they  fhould 
Jiave  the  propofed  Epifcopate,'  unlefs  he  had 
littered  a  downright  faliliood.  I  challenge  him 
to  produce  any  fcntence  in^this  paragraph,  or 
in  any  other  part  of  my  anTver,  in  which  this  is 
declared  either  dircdly,  or  even  confequentially. 
It  is  indeed  a  flat  contradi£lion  to  all  that  I  had 
faid  What  he  means,  in  the  following  words, 
by  my  '  choofmg,  perhaps,  that  this  Epifcopate 
fliould  be  granted  as  a  matier  of  favour,  rather 
than  of  right,'  is  beyond  me  to  inveiligate.  I 
faid  not  a  word  about  '  favour*  in  this  refpedl  •, 
but  confined   myfelf  wholly   to  the   matter  of 

*  right.'  It  mull:  therefore  be  owing  to  fome 
flrange  '.confufion  in  hiS  ideas,'  that  he  fhoujd 
go  on,  and  inquire,  '  What  need  is  thereof  this 
diftindlion,  and  to  what  purpofe  will  it  ferve,  if  ir 
is  not  to  operate  againfl  us  ?'  This  is  a  '  diftinc- 
tion'  intirely  of  his  own  framing.  Ic  never  en- 
teied  into  my  heart,  nor  is  there  a  word  con- 
tained 


^APPEAL  DEFENDED.'     175 

tained  in  this  whole  paragraph  that  could  lead 
him  to  make  it.  It  is  to  m«  altogether  unac- 
countable, how  he  came  to  think  of  it*  He 
proceeds,  '  Our  claim  is,  that  we  may  be  upon 
an  equal  footing  with  the  other  denominations 
in  America.'  I  have  more  than  onee  affirmed, 
and  abundantly  proved,  in  thefe  papers5that  they 
are  upon  this  equal  footing  •,  and  call  upon  him 
to  prove  the  contrary.  Says  he,  '  In  order  to 
this,  [our  being  upon  an  equal  footing  i  it  is  ne- 
cefTary,  that  we  iliould  be  alioweJ  the  enjoymenc 
of  our  ecclejiajiical  conftiiution  in  the  fame  corn- 
pleat  manner,  as  it  is  enjoyed  by  them.'  By 
^  our  ecclefiajlical  conflitution^  he  mud  mean  here 
the  conftitution  of  the  church  of  England  ;  but 
to  enjoy  this  in  as  compleat  a  manner,  as  other 
denommations  enjoy  their's,  is  not  to  enjoy  ic 
agreeably  to  the  propofed  plan,  but  to  the  utter 
fubverfion  of  it  ;  as  will  prefently  appear.  He 
goes  on,  '  of  our  ccclefiaftical  conftitution  Bi- 
fhops  make  an  cflential  part,  and  therefore  with- 
out an  Epifcopale  we  cannot  enjoy  it.'  Nei- 
ther can  they  compkatly  enjoy  it  with  Bifhops, 
vinlefs  they  have  authority  over  the  Laity  as 
well  as  Clergy  -,  for  fuch  authority >'S  an  ej^'ntial 
part  of  the  conftitution.  Nay  furth:.r,  this  con- 
ftitution cannot  be  xr^npleatly  enjoyed  without 
fpiritual  courts,  and  the  cxercife  of  epifcopal  au- 
thority in  the  precife  way  and  manner  that  has 
been  folemnly  eftablirtied  by  King  and  Parlia- 
ment, The  Dodor  has  here  infenftbly  endea- 
voured to  prove  a  great  deal  too  much,  unlefs 
he  intended  to  give  us  a  remote  infmuation  of 
what  might  be  expedlcd,  ftiould  the  propofed 
plan  be  complied  with,  namely,  that  the  church 
of  England  was  not  yet  in  the  full  and  compleat 
enjoyment  of  her  conftitution  ;  her  enjoyment 
cauft  rife  ftill  much  higher.      He  adds,  '  Our 

claim 


%74  REPLY    TO    T  HE      \ 

tlaim  is  juftified  by  the  common  principles  of 
human  nature,  of  the  chriflian  religion,  and  of 
icivil  Ibciety.'  If  fo,  the  claim  is  as  well  found- 
ed as  a  claim  can  be.  But  what  proof  has  he 
given  us 'that  their  claim  is  thus  founded  ?  It 
follows  in  thefe  moft  remarkable  words,  *  We 
call  it  a  right  becaufe  all  good  WTiters  agc,ee 
in  calling  a  right  thus  founded  by  that  name.* 
What  is  this  to  the  purpofe  ?  Whoever  quefti- 
oned,  whether  a  claim  thus  founded  might  be 
called  a  right  ?  His  bufinefs  was  to  prove,  that 
their  claim,  or  right,  to  the  propofed  Epifco- 
pate  was  thus  founded,  that  is,  upon  the  princi- 
ples he  had  before  fpecified.  But  not  a  word  -is 
offered  in  proof  of  this.  Tt  refts  upon  nothing 
more. than  his  naked  affirmation.  He  fays  yet 
further, '  For  words  we  do  not  concend.  What 
we  infift  upon  is  this,  that  the  church  of  En- 
gland is,  in  all  refpecis,  fairly  entitled  to  as  full 
a  toleration  in  the  Colonies,  as  other  churches  in 
the  Colonies  enjoy.  And  it  cannot  be  thus  to- 
lerated unlefs  it  be  fuffered  to  exist  in  all 
•ITS  PARTS.'  If  the  church  of  England  cannot 
be  FULLY  TOLERATED  in  the  Colonies,  unlefs 
it  is  fuffered  to  exist  in  all  its  parts,  it  is 
at  once  evident,  that  we  mult  have  in  Ameri- 
ca not  only  Bifhops,  but  Deans,  Prebends,  Arch- 
Deacons,  spiritual  courts  with  their  Chancellors, 
and  the  whole  train  of  officers  employed  in  ma- 
i^aging  that  spiritual  authority  which  is  ex- 
crcifed  over  both  Clergy  and  fealty  :  For  thefe 
are  PARTS  of  the  confticuted  church  of  England. 
It  is  ftrange  the  Doflpr,  v;h:le  arguing  for  no- 
thing more  than  that  limited  Epifcopate  he  had 
propoft^d,  IhouM  endsavour  to  do  ic  upon  a 
plan  that  would  make  it  realbnable,  that  the 
church  of  England  iliould  cxiil  here  in  all  re- 
spects 


•APPEAL  DEFENDED/      175 

fPECTS,  and  IN  all  its  parts,  as  ic  does  ac 
home.  But  he  ought  to  know,  that  in  order 
io  this,  fomething  more  than  '  a  fair  and  iull 
toleration'  would  be  ncccfTaFy.  There  muft  b^ 
an  ESTABLISHMENT,  which  he  will  not  allow  he 
ever  thought  of  ;  as  wc  fhall  lee  pre  fen  tly. 
The  plain  truth  is  ;  as  ic  was  '  our  bufinefs  as 
opponents,'  we  have  fhewn,  that  the  Colony- 
EpiTcopalians  are  treated  in  precifely  '  the  fame 
manner'  with  the  other  denominations — They 
are  all,  without  exception,  upon  the  fame  foot- 
ing of  liberty,  in  virtue  of  the  granted  tolerati- 
on ;  and  if  Epifeopalians  do  not  enjoy  any  fpi- 
ritual  privileges  fo  fully  as  any  of  the  other  de- 
nominations, it  is  not  owing,  in  the  lead  mea- 
fure,  to  the  want  of  a  permission  herefor  ;  for 
the  GRANTED  PERMISSION  is  the  fame  to  all  j 
making  no  manner  ofdirFerence  between  one  de- 
nomination and   another. 

I  HAD  faid,  appeal  anfwered  p.  180,  '  If 
Epifeopalians  think  Bifhops,  in  the  appropriated 
fenfe,  were  confticutcd  by  CHRIST,  or  his  Apof- 
tlcs,  we  objedl  not  a  word  agaihfl  their  having 
as  many  of  them  as  they  pleafe,  if  they  will  be 
content  to  have  them  with  authority  altoge- 
ther fromCHRIST.  But  they  both  claim  and 
defire,  a  great  deal  more.  They  want  to  be 
diftinguifhed  '  by  having  Bifhops  upon  the  foot- 
ing of  a  STATE  establishment'?  I  then  went 
on  to  argue  fomewhat  largely  againil  their  having 
a  right  to  fuch  an  eltablifhmcnt.  The  Do6tor 
replies,  '  Where  did  he  learn  that  we  vvant  Bi- 
fliops  upon  fuch  a  footing  ?'  and  affirms,  *  That  I 
could  learn  it,  neither  from  the  appeal,  or  from 
any  thing  that  has  been  publifhed  on  the  fide  of 
the  church  •,'  yea,  he  folemnly  declares,  '  I  know 
of  no  fuch  thing,  1  have  fccn  DOthing  that  has 

been 


175  REPLY  TO  THE 

been  written,  fince  the  reign  of  Quecn/f;;»,  either 
in  England  or  America,  in  print  or  in  manufcripty 
that  indicates  fuch  a  defire*.  He  goes  on  yet 
farther,  and  fays,  '  I  have  met  with  nothing  in 
converfation  with  Clergymen  orLaymenJn  or  out 
of  convention,  from  whence  I  can  learn  or  fuf* 
pe6t,  that  there  is  an  Epifcopalian,  within  the 
Britifh  dominions,  that  aims  at  or  expedls  an 
Epifcopate  here  upon-  the  footing  of  a  ftate  efta- 
blifhment*.  The  Do6lor,  when  he  wrote  thus, 
muft  have  had  in  his  thoughts  an  eftablilliment 
for  the  fupport  af  the  epilcopal  Clergy,  cither 
fuperior,  or  mferior,  or  bo:h.  In  this  view,  an 
cftablifhment  was  not  propofed  in  the  'appeal,^ 
nor  is  it  pleaded  for  in  the  writings  on  the  fide 
of  the  church  that  1  know  of  ♦,  nor  can  1  fay, 
that  it  was  ever  mentioned  by  the  convention  r 
Though  I  am  far  from  thinking  it  to  be  a  truth, 
that  there  is  no  Clergyman  or  Layman,  in  the 
AmericanColonies,  that  does  not  expedl  and  wifh, 
that  an  eftablilhment  upon  this  footing,  will  be 
brought  into  event  fooner  or  later.  I  faid  no- 
thing about  fuch  an  eflablifhmenr.  .But  an  efta- 
blifhment,  and  a  (late  one  too,  muft  take  place, 
or  the  churctrof  England  here  can  never  have 
theEpifcopate  that  has  been  propofed  anddefired. 
The  Doftor  will  own,  the  Epifcopate  that  has 
been  planned  for  the  Colonies  is  widely  different 
from  that  which  exifts  at  home.  American  Bi- 
fhops  Ihall  have  no  authority  over  the  Laity  •,— 
their  fpiritual  courts  muft  not  be  held  in  this 
part  of  the  world  ; — and  they  themfelves  are  to 
ie  confined  in  their  power  within  certain  pre- 
fcribed  boundaries.  How  is  all  this  to  be  ac- 
compliftied  ?  Muft  there  not  be  the  intcrpofi- 
tion  of  the  ftate  ?  Can  it  be  cifeded  in  any 

other 


^APPEAL  DEFENDED/     177 

Qiher  way  ?  And  if  the  ftate  inrerpofes  to  con- 
riicute  a  Colony  Epifcopate,  itmuit  be  under  thcic. 
patronage,  guidance,  and  controul,  as  to  the  ex- 
ercite  of  its  powers.       And  what  is  this,  in  real 
meaning,  but  an  ellabliilinicnt  ?  The  church  of 
England,  in  this  cafe,  will  be  diftinguiflied  from 
all  the  other  denominations  ;  and,  jnilead  of  be- 
ing only  tolerated  as  they  are,  will  be  as  truly, 
if  not  as  fully,  an  eilablifned  church  here^  as  it  is 
in    Great-Britain.       But    Colony  Epifcopalian* 
have  no  right  to  be  thus  diltinguifhed  •,  as  was 
abundantly   proved  in  anfwcr  to   the  appeal,   to 
which  the   Doctor  has   faid  nothing  by  way  of 
reply,  for  no  other  reafon,  it  may  well    be  fup- 
pofcd,  but  becaufe  he  could  not.     If  he  had  here 
pointed  out,  as  it  was  his  proper  buiinefs  to  do, 
the  way  in  which  the  Epifcopace  propofed  in  the 
appeal,   and   by  the    writers   on  the  (ide  of   the 
church,  couid  be   carried  into  effe^  withcut  a 
ftate-efiablijhment^  he  would  have  faid   fomething 
to    the    purpofe    ;    bur,    having  wifely   avoid- 
ed   tKis,   we  are  left  jo    think,   the  American 
Epifcopate  they  have  planned   is  virtually,  and 
in  realitf  of  fenfe,  the  fame  thing  with  a  planned 
epifcopal   eftabliOiment.       Ic    is    to     us    incon- 
ceivable,   how    their  defired   Epifcopate  couldj 
in  any  other  way,   take  place  in  the   Colonies. 
In   vain  therefore   does  he  complain,  that  '  they 
are  abufed  by  petulent  tongues  and  abusive  pens 
for  being  charged  with  aimmg    at  a  (late  efta- 
blifnment.'      We  fhould  feel  '  remorfe  of  con- 
fcience,  if  we  did  not  without   hefitation'  object 
againft  the    propofed   Epifcopate   for  this  very 
reafon,   becaufe,  by    aiming  at    it,  an   eftablifti- 
ment  of  Epifcopacy   in  America  is  equally  aim- 
ed at.      The  impartial  Public  are  to  determine^, 
not  T>v,  Chandler,  whether  they  arejultly  char- 
ged, or  ^  unwarrantably  corAdemned,' 


17^  REPLY  TO  THE 

He  ftill  goes  on,  In  his  defence,  a  number 
of  pages  ;  bur,  as  there  is  fcarce  any  thing  in 
them  that  relaies  to  the  grand  pointy  and  nothing, 
fo  far  as  I  am  able  to  judge,  of  fufBcienc  weight 
to  call  for  particular  notice  •,  if  the  reader  will 
only  compare  what  he  has  offered  in  thefe 
pages,  with  the  anfwtr  to  the  appeal,  I  am  per- 
fectly willing,  without  faying  a  word  more,  to 
leave  the  difpute.to  the  determination  of  his  im- 
parrial  judgment.  But,  at  the  fame  time,  I 
Would  allure  the  Dodor,  that  his  '  fear,'  kali:  he 
f}:i0uld  have  '  fomewhat  broken  in  upon  my  re- 
pofe,'.is  entirely  groundlefs.  He  may  fondly 
imagine,  he  has  *  pleaded  the  caufe  he  under- 
took' with  fuch  fupcriority  of  good  fenfe,  and 
found  reaioning,  ss  to  give  me  '  d.fturbance  i* 
but  he  has  been  the  occafion  of  no  other  unea- 
finefs  to  me  than  that  of  difappointmcnt  ;  for 
he  has  fallen  much  below  my  willies  as  well  as 
expedlations  ;  not  having  wrote  fo  ^s  to  give 
opportunity  for  a  tiyal  of  flrength.  Pie  has 
candidly  excufed  my  infufficiency,  as  it  was  my 
hard  lot  to  prove,  '  that  good  is  evil,  and  evil 
good  •,  that  darknefs  is  light,, and  light  ig  dark- 
nets,  which  could  nqt  be  done  without  '  fiich  a 
genius  and  abilities  as  are  not  to  be  found'.  I 
wilh  I  'could  make  fo  good  an  apology  for  him. 
His*taflc  v^/as  ealy.  He  had  only  to  plead  the 
caufe  of  trutn  i  and  ytt,  he  has  done  it  with  fo 
i'ttie  appeal ance  of  ingenuous  folid  arguing, 
that,  I  fear,  his  caufe  wiil  fuffer  in,  the  opinion 
of  all  that  are  capable  of  difcernm>cnt/ 

1  INTENDED  to  havecome  to  a  conclufionhere, 
by  prefentlng  to  the  reader,  in  one  view,  the  fum 
of  what  has  been  faid  on  both  fides,  that  he 
might  the  more  eafily  make  a  judgment  in  the 
cafe.     But  I  muft  omit  this,  that  I  may   have 

room 


^APPEAL  DEFENDED.'        179 

room  for  a  matter  of  much  greater  importance  ; 
£he  trcfarment  of  the  Pn-fbyterian  church  at 
New- York,  in  relation  to  the  charter  they  peti- 
lioned  for,  both  to  the  government  there,  and  to 
the  King  at  horn?.  And  1  the  rather  chule  to 
hold  [his  up  to  pLvblic  view,  as  it  is  an  alarm  to 
ail  the  Colonieg  on  the  Continent,  giving  them 
folemn  norice  wha^  they  may  expcd,  fliould 
Epifcopahans  ever  come  to  have  the  fuperioriry 
in  their  influence.  Nothing  has  been  ofitred, 
in  a  way  of  reafoning,  againil  the  planned  Ame- 
rican Epifcopate,  that  carries  with  it  fuch  feel- 
ing FORC£  as  the  negative  to  the  prayer  of  this 
petition,  with  the  realoas  upon  which  it  is 
grounded. 

That  the  reader  may  perceive  the  propriety 
of  my  introducing  this   anair,  I   would  jud    re- 
mind him,  that  the   Do6tor,  in    his  appeal,  had 
fpoken  of  the    *  miidnefs,    tendernefs,    ard   mo- 
deration of  the  EnoViih  B;iIiops  for  a  courfe    of 
years  pad  j'  infomuch,  that  they    had  '  fcarcely 
afforded    an    inHance   of    reafonable  complaint, 
efpecially  to  Diiienters  :'  In  aniwer  whercro,   he 
was  told  of  the  rcjedlion  of  the  petition,  of  the 
Presbyterian    church   at    Ntw-Yorjc  for  a  char- 
ter j'  which  was  effeded    through  the  interpofi' 
tion,  particularly,  of  the  Biihopof  London,  oc- 
cafioned,  without  aH  doubt,  bj   ungenerous  re- 
prefentarions  from  Epifcopalians  in  America. 

A3  I  am  noJt,  from  perfonal  knowledge,  ac- 
quainted  wJih  this  affair  any  more  than  theDoc- 
tor,  v/hat  I  propcf:^  is  to  hand  to  the  Public,  in 
an  apptnJix,  the  clear,  full,  and  yet  concife,  ac- 
count of  ir,  which  has  been  tranfmitced  to  me 
from  Nevv-York  :  previouHy  giving  this  indma-  • 
tion,  that  the  fafts,  contained  in  the  account  to 

be 


Po  REPLY  TO  THE,  ^^; 

^56  exhibited,  came  with  their  proper  vouchers, 
copies  of  the  original  papers,  which  would  have 
been  printed,  but  that  they  are  moft  of  them 
iong  ;  and  it  was  thought,  it  would  be  too 
great'a  trefpafs  on  the  readers's  patience  to  call 
his  attention  to  them.  They  may,  however,  be 
feen,  fhould  it  bp  defired,  eiiher  here  or  at  New- 
york. 


ERRATA. 


P.  1. 1.  17,  for  have  r,  what  has-^p.  9,  I.  45,  for  could 
r.  would — p.  12.  L  38,  for  ingenious  r.  ingenuous — p. 
14.  i.  12,  for  ingenious  r.  ingenuous — p.  48.  1.  37,  for 
wree  r.  were — p.  52.  I.  12,  after  where  dele  of — p.  54.. 
i.  18,  for  entertains  r.  entertain — p.  69.  1.  J  2,  for  rec- 
torfnip,  r.  deanry.  p,  126.  I.  33,  for  there  r.  here— p. 
x;^i,  1.  26,  for  were  r.  was. 


APPENDIX. 


APPENDIX 


npHE  true   hiftory   of   the   various     applications   of 
•*-    the   Prefbyterians  of  the   City  ofNew-Yorlc    for 
a   charter,    and   of    their  various   dirappointments,   is 
fuccin^lly  this. 

A  number  of  Gentlemen  purchafed  a  lot  of  ground 
in  17 19,  for  the  creeling  of  a  church  to  worfhip  in,  af- 
ter the  mode  of  the  eftablifhed  pcrfuafion  in  North- 
Britain.  There  was  not  then  in  this  Colony,  nor  is 
there  to  this  day,  any  general  provifion  made  by  law, 
for  the  regulation  of  churches,  or  for  the  fupport  of  the 
Mlnifters  of  the  gofpel— It  is  therefore  expedient  in 
this  Country,  for  the  prefervation  of  the  temporalities 
©f  every  church,  and  the  maintenance  of  good  order, 
that  the  congregation  be  incorporated—Charters  for 
fuch  purpofes  had  been  granted  to  the  low  Dutch,  and 
^pifcopal  churches  ;  and  the  Colony  being  peopled 
from  Scotland  as  well  as  England,  the  Scotch  founders 
of  the  Prefbyterian  church  in  New-York,  thought  they 
had  reafon  to  hope  government  would  not  be  lefs  fa- 
vourable to  them,  than  to  the  Emigrants  from  South- 
Britain  ;  and  could  not  imagine  that  the  fons  of  the 
church  of  Scotland,,  united  to  England  by  a<5l  of  Par- 
liament, and  the  ties  of  allegiance  as  natural  born 
flibjedls,  were  not  to  have  equal  countenaace,  with> 
thofe  of  the  foreign  reformed  church  of  the  united  Ne- 
therlands, between  which  and  the  church  of  Scotland, 
there  is  n9  efTential  difparity,  and  very  little  even  in 
point  of  meer  form.  With  confidence  therefore  they 
prefented  a  petition  to  Col.  Schyler^  who  commanded 
in  chief  in  1721,  for  letters  of  incorporation.  The 
Epifcopalians  oppofed  the  grant,  though  they  v/ere 
themfelves  thenjuft  emerging  from  their  obfcurity  ; 
for,  at  that  time,  the  low  Dutch  congregations  figured 

as 


a  APPENDIX. 


as  the  'firft  churches  in  Town,  and  are  ftill  the  mofi: 
nuTJ^rous,  though  many  of  their  richeft  families  are 
gone  ofF  for  the  fake  of  the  language,  to  the  Englifh 
churches.  When  Governor  Burnet  arrived,  the  Pr#fby- 
teiians  renewed  their  attempt,  and  the  veftry  of  trinity 
church  iheir  pppofition.  They  were  heard  againft  the 
petition,  and  to  the  fcandal  of  the  council-board  were 
indulged  in  their  contemptible  narrow  minded  bigotry^ 
TheGovernor,  though/avorably  inclined  to  his  country-^ 
xnen,  was  unwilling  to  proceed  v/ithout  dircdlion  from 
bome-T-He  v/rote  to  the  board  of  trade  in  1714.,  and 
.their  Lordfhips  confulted  Counfelior  IVeJi^  who  iubfcri- 
hzd.  an  opinion  in  the  following  terms. 

*  Upon  conllderation  of  the  fcvei:al  a£ls  of  unifor- 
mity thatbave  pafTed  in  Great-Britain  i  am  of  opinion, 
that  they  do  not  extend  toNew-York,anQ  confequentiy 
an  ad^  of  toleration  is  of  no  ufe  in  that  Province  3  and 
therefore,  as  there  is  no  provincial  a£l  for  uniformity  ac- 
cording to  the  church  of  Eaglasd,  1  am  of  opinion,  th§t 
hy  law  fuch  patents  of  incorporation  rnay  be  granted 
as  by  the  petition  is  defired. 

Richard  JVefty    A  ug.  2  o.  1 7  2  4* 

No  charter  could  however  be  obtained,  and  difcou- 
raged  by  fsixeff  lefs  foMicitations,  the  congregation  fer 
the  prefervation  of  ta^ir  rftate,  veiled  it  in  March  1730, 
in  the  general  afTembly  of  the  church  of  Scotjand, 
who  /lili  hold  the  fee^  but  have  ifiu^d  a  declaration 
contimiing  the  application  of  it,  to  tae  pious  ufes,  for 
which  it  was  originally  purchafed. 

Notwithstanding  ail  oppGiiUon,theScotch  church 
flourifhed  undex  the  long  and  laborious  minit1:ry  of  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Pemberton^  who  fettled  here  in  1717  ;  and 
when  the  Lutherans  applied  for  a  charter  to  Lieutenant 
Governor  Delancy  in  1759,  the  Prefb^'terians  made  a 
third  application-*  The  Lutherans  were  encouraged  by 
gentlemen  then  in  the  council,  who  promifed  to  be- 
friend them  }  and  the  Pfc-fb7t'."rians  by  favourable  ex- 
preflions  from  the  Lieutenant  Govsrnor,  who  had  fre- 
quently declared  his  abhorrence  of  th^;  former  oppofitioa 
as  illegal  and  unreafonabie  ;  and  when  the  petition  was 
preferred,  he  received  Mr.  Bojiwick^  the  then  Minifter, 
and  his  Elders  and  Deacons,  politely,' and  profelTsd 

his 


APPENDIX. 


in 


his  readincfs  to  grant  their  rcqucft,if  the  Council  would 
concur. 

Mr.  Smithy  fincc  one  of  the  Judges,  was  one  of  the 
board,  when  the  petition  of  the  Presbyterians  was  read, 
and  referred  to  a  committee  ;  but  no  opportunity  was 
given  for  a  trial  cf  Mr  Delanceys  fincerity  :  for  Mr. 
Smith,  the  only  Non-epifcopalian  member,  was  chofen 
chairman  of  the  Committee,  and  was  unable  to  pre- 
vail upon  the  reft  of  the  council  to  meet  5  and,  if  he 
could,  would  have  loft  his  own  vote  by  being  in  the 
chair. 

Obliging  theLutherans  at  that  time,if  any  fuch  in- 
tention there  really  was,  would  have  difcovered  a  parti- 
ality too  barefaced  ;  and  therefore,  while  the  Presbvte- 
rlans  petition  was  neglcded,  thfat  of  the  Lutherans  was 
flily  pretended  to  be  put  in  a  way  for  obtaining  the 
royal  order  from  home  ;  and  thus  the  council  were  to 
be  behind  the  cuitain,  and  avoid  popular  cenfure. — It 
fo  happened  hswever,  and  perhaps  by  intriegues  from 
this  quarter,  that  the  Lords  of  trade  could  not  fee  it  ex- 
pedient to  advife  the  gratification  of  their  requeft  ;  and. 
accordingly  a  letter  came  from  their  Lordfhips  to  Mr. 
Golden^  which  cut  cfFthc  reafonable  expe£lations  of  that 
fociety  of  loyal  Proteftants. 

The  Presbyterians  had  experienced  many  inconveni- 
ences for  v/ant  of  a  charter  ;  and  though  the  juft,  and 
generous  adminiftration  of  Sir  Henry  Moare,  prompted 
them  to  make  a  fourth  attempt,  yet  upon  a  doubt  no;v 
ilarted,  whether  his  commiiuon  authorifed  him  to 
grant  incorporating  patents,  and  from  a  want  of  confi- 
dence in  his  council,  it  was  thought  moft  prudent  to 
lay  the  cafe,  of  this  diftant  difperfian  of  the  church  of 
Scotland,  before  his  Majcfty — A  petition  was  accord- 
ingly prepared,  and  tranfmitted  with  a  draft  ©f  the 
charter  defired  in  March,  1767. 

The  negotiation  of  this  bufmcfs  was  trufted  to  the 
late  Dr.  Samuel  Chandler,  and  Mr.  Debert .,  but  it 
fell  folely  upon  the  latter.  Dr.  C^tf«^Vr,  dying  about 
the  time  of  the  arrival  of  the  papers  in  London.  The 
Earl  of  Dartmouth,  fo  renowned  for  his  catholicimi, 
and  readinefs  to  promote  the  intercft  of  our  common 
chrifilanity,  then  prefidcdat  the  board  of  trade,  and  en- 
tered 


!r  APPENDIX. 

tered  fully  into  an  opinion  of  the  reafonablenefs  oftlid 
rcqueft,  and  advifed  Mr.  Dehert  to  put  the  petition  in- 
to the  King's  hand,  before  the  co-operation  of  cer- 
tain friends,  whofe  aid  was  afked,  could  be  obtained. 
His  Majefty  was  pleated  to  lay  the  petition  before 
the  Lords  of  the  privy  council,  and  to  refer  it  to  the 
board  of  trade.  1  he  Lords  Commiffioners  for  Plan- 
tation af^'airs  lufpended  a  report^  until  they  ha(^  an 
■anlwefj  from  Sir  Henry  Moore^  to  a  letter  they  wrote 
to  him  on  the  29th  of  July,   1766. 

This  letter  was  accompanied  with  a  copy  of  the  pe- 
tition and  the  draft  of  the  charter— -They  were  all  com- 
municated by  the  Go?err.©r  to  his  council  ;  and  on  th? 
-lyth  of  July,  1 767,  the  petitioners  offered  to  attend 
the  call  of  the  board,  f^r  the  fupport  of  thei?  allegati- 
ons, by  a  petition  which  was  that  day  read  in  coun* 
ci),  and  left  with  their  clerk,  for  the  ufe  of  the  com* 
mittee. — A  few  days  after  Mr.  Horfemanden^  as  the 
oldeft  member  of  the  board,  was  waited  upon  to  ap- 
point a  time  to  receive  a  rcqueft  for  this  purpofc,  but 
declined  it. 

No  report  was  delivered  until  the  15th  of  April,  al- 
.  though  the  letter  from  theLords  of  trade  arrived  here  on 
the  4th  of  November  preceding, and  there  weremany  in- 
termediate meetings  of  the  council.  1  believe  the  mi- 
nutes will  prove  that  the  members  met  every  week.-^ 
At  one  of  thefe  meetings,  in  the  latter  end  of  March, 
the  Chief  Juflice  was  called  out,  and  in  anfwer  to  an 
intreaty  for  a  fpeedy  report  to  the  Governor,  faid  with 
tartnefs  *  That  the  matter  need  not  be  pujhcd^  and  that  he 
wtjked  the  gDvernment  had  not  troubled  them  with  the  peti^ 
tisn.  A  Gentleman  took  the  liberty  to  fay,  that  all 
the  Lords  of  trade  required  was  to  be  informed,  whe- 
ther the  allegations  were  true  j  to  which  he  replied, 
*  Of  that  there  is  no  doubt,'' 

The  report  appears,  however,  by  its  date,  to  have 
been  hnidicd  about  that  time.  We  do  not  learn,  that 
the  committee  were  waited  upon  now  by  the  vcftry  of 
trinity  church,  nor  was  it  nceeffary,  as  their  church 
wardens  were  of  the  council.  Mr.  Chief  Jufticc  was 
one,  and  Mr.  Reade  the  other,  and  as  chairman  of  the 
committee  had  the  honour  to  make  their  report. 
*      •  That 


APPENDIX.  ^ 

That  it  was  not  earlier  delivered,  may  be  imputed  to  a 
defirc  to  render  the  petition  abortive,  or  to  the  thei\ 
ticklifti  (late  of  things,  a  difTolution  of  the  sfRmbjy  in 
purfuance  of  a  feptennial  ad  being  at  hand,  and  pmes 
Delancey  named  as  a  candidate  for  the  C;ty  of  New- 
York,  who  had  two  uncles  in  council,  zealous  for  the 
public  confidence,  and  interefted  in  retarding  a  report 
which  would  naturallv  give  cftence  ;  but  the  Gover- 
nor's importunitv  forced  them  to  fpeak  o^t.—It  docs 
not  appear  that  there  was  a  fmgle  member  diir^ntmg 
to  this  report.  .  u      <r 

The  petitioners  afked  for  a  copy  on  the  aoth  ot 
April,  1767,  but  tiil|iequeft  was  denied,  and  by  this 
means  their  adverfaries  had  frequent  opportunity  for 
ex  part3  reprefentations  againft  rhemeafure,  in  a  courfe 
of  private  correfpondence  ;  which  w«s  doubtlefs  im- 
proved by  the  Clergy,  and  the  draftfmen  who  fabricated 
the  report. 

Sir   Henry  Moore  lof^  no  time  in  tranfmitting  it.— • 
The  petitioners  (who  one  would  imagine  had  a  right 
to  be  heard)  were  ignorant  of  its  contents,  and  under 
all  pofTible  difadvantages  ;  nor  could  give    any  futable 
directions   to  their  Agent. — Whether  the  council  kept 
the  fecret  from  the  Epifcopaiians  without  doors,  judge 
you.       The   Bifhop  of  London,  notwithftanding  the 
boafted  moderation  of  the  order,  appeared  twice  to  op- 
pofe   the   petition   before  the  CommilTioncrs  for  trade 
and  Plantations,  as  though  t  he  grant  of  the  privilege, 
of  fecuring  a  houfe  fet  apart  by  Protcftants,  woifhipping 
according   to  the    ufage   in  North  Britain,  was  repug- 
nant  to    the  benevoler.ee    enjoined   by    the   gofpei  ot 
CHRIST  :  and  though  Lora  Clare,  whofe  zeal  for  li- 
berty, and  the  rights  of  private  judgment,   maybe  ar- 
gued from  a  well  known  event  in  the  hiilory  of  his  life, 
was  then  premier  at  the  board  of  trade,  a  report  was 
made  to  his  Majefly,  which  foon  after  iiilied  in  a  final 
lejedion  of  the  petition.      In  this  report,  the  queflicn. 
Whether    his  Majefly,    confiftently    with    the     obli- 
gations he  was  under   by  his  coronation  oath,  founded 
on  the  aftofthe  fifth  of  Queen  Ann,  entitled, '  an  ad  for 
fecuringtheehurchofEnglandasbylaweftabh(hed,'could 

iirantthe  requeflsd  charter,  being  left  undecided  i  the 
A  a  '^P^'^^^ 


vi  A  P  P  E  N  D  I  X. 

report  was,  It  would  be  '  inexpedient,  upon  the  princi-' 
pies  of  general  policy,  to  give  the  Prefbyterian  church 
of  Ncvv-Ycrk  any  other  privileges  than  it  is  entitled 
to  by  the  Uw  of  toleration.* 

Whatever  liberties  the  people  of  England  may 
think  fit  to  take  at  this  day,  in  remarking  upon  the  idiS 
of  their  Sovereign,  the  Americans  conceive  themfelves 
b(*uad  to  fpeak  on  fuch  occafions,  with  the  moft  pro- 
found  deference.  The  light,  however,  in  which  his 
fc-rvahts  have  thought:  fit  to  hold  up  the  requeft  of  the 
Scotch  church  of  New -York,  eyery  man  ^ay  never- 
the'cfs  confiJer  and  animadvert^mon  with  fome  free- 
dom. They  are  anfwerable  ti^ne  whole  Vorld  for 
their  conducl:  ;  and  have  proceeded  upon  a  principle, 
th'cit  dcferves  the  corifiderslicn  of  all  -the  Colonies.  No- 
thing has  contributed  more  to  the  ncquifition  and  cul- 
tivation of  thefe  cdcntial  parts  of  the  Empire,  than  the 
ftafonable  and  well  policed  afiurance  we  have  had  for 
free,  indulgence  in  matters  of  religion  ;  And  a  repug- 
nant fpirit  will  be  as  ruinous  to  our  peace  and  prcfpe- 
lity,  as  it  is  difgraceful  to  a  Gentlemsn,  and  incon- 
fiftent  with  religion  and  philofophy,  freedom  of  enquiry, 

ri^d  human  f^=Mc;ty.      We  have  feen  an  A-— m^f-- n 

cf  corrupt  and  d  fIVutc  M-n-— r?,  mcrcilefsly  grafp- 
ing  at  cur  lil  ertics  and  eftates  ;  and  it  is  feme  confola- 
t:on. that  cur  difappointment  in  a  requeft  friendly'to  the 
rights  cf  ccnfciernce,  may  be  attributed  to  men,  whofe 
influer-ce  at  the  court  cf  a  good  King,  will  probably 
very  focn    be  at  an  end.  ^ 

i  ONLY  add,  that  although  there  have  long  fmce 
been  petitions  preferred  7;^ 7v,  by  theFrench  Protcflants, 
rnd  the  Low  Dutch  churches  of  Orange  Town,  New- 
Hempfted,  Marble  Tovyn,  Bot^heftcr  and  V/awarfing,^ 
notrung  tir/al  is  determined  upon  them  ;  while  it 
h  the  ufual  pra^lice,  to  grant  charters  to  the  epifco- 
pal  churches  without  the  Icaft  htfitation.  ^  It  is  not 
long,  iincw  the  little  congregation  at  Albany  was  in- 
corporated with  power  to  hold  an  immenfe  revenue. 
/\;:oihcr  pater.t  i;>  iilued  to  provide  for  Clergymen's 
wkJow?,  by  an  income  of  many  ihoufands  per  annum  ; 
and  at  I  his  very  jundurc  the  Society  for  propagating 
the  gcfj^el,  though  reltrained  from  taking  real  eftatcs  at 
home,  are  afkiDg  for  grants  of  the  crown  lands  here 
in  niortmaia  tor  the  cpifcopal  churches,  to  the  amount 

of 


APPENDIX.  vii 

of  thoufands  of  acres.  In  fome  in{iances  they  have 
been  gratified  already.  Thefc  fa6ts  are  mentioned,  to 
ihew  the  fpirit  of  the  oppoiition  to  the  pet'.tions  of  the 
non-eDifcopal  churches,  who,  inftcad  of  folic iting  for 
amp^e  endowments,  defire  nothing  more  than  purcha- 
Jed  c&ztesy  barely  fuffici^t  for  the  fupport  of  the  gof- 
pel  5  and  to  juftify  our  f^Hs  that  the  prefcnt  liruggies  of 
the  MiiTionaries  and  others  to  introduce  Epifcopacy  in- 
to America,  originate  from  ambitious  deligns  for  efia- 
bh'fhing  an  opulent  hierarchy  in  this  Country,  with 
^relaticai  diftinclion  iind  power. 

The  reader  will  not,  I  truO:,  be  out  of  patience,  if 
he  is  detained,  while  I  cantrad  the  above  account  with 
an  a£i  of  the  Mojjochujetti-gbvernmtnt^  confpicuc  usiy 
exempiifyino:  that  candour,  faiincfs,  and  impartial  equi- 
ty in  Ncn-EpijcDpaUanSy  which  were  fo  Ikm■^x\.zb\y 
wanting  in  thait  of  the  contrary  denon;irat:on,  with 
leference  to  the    affair  that  has  btcn  juft  related. 

ThI^  f7^,  having  had  the  Royal  sanction,  with- 
out thelcaft  obfirudtion  fiom  the  il^miy  prttcrtce  of  'a 
breach    of  the   coronation-oath,'   or  a   '    violation    of 
any  acbs  of  un^iformity,'  or  its  b:ing  *  incojiiiRent  Vv'ith 
found   policy,*    has,    from   the  28th    of    the.  reign  of 
George   the  2nd,  been«^  {landing  law  of  tlij^  Piovijice. 
It  v/as  occajQoned  by  a  motion  made  in  the  houfe  of 
reprefcntitives,  in  behalf  of  the  Paflors  and  Deacon?  of 
the  church  to  which  I    am  related,  that  they  miv'ht  be 
flrengthened  in  their  endeavours  to  ftcure  the  payment 
of  an  annuity,  given  to  them  by  will,  out  of  ihe  rents 
of  a  valuable  farm, to  be  hy  them  yearly  difpofcd  of  for- 
ever for  the   benefit'  of  a  well-dif|.ofed,  and  promifing^ 
but  needy,  Hudent  at  Harvayd~Q.o\\Qgf:^  in  Can,bridpc. 
It  was  at  once  thought,  that  this  v/as  a  matter  of  com- 
rxion  concern    ;    and,  accordingly,  an  2,&z   was   prepar- 
ed, and  paiHd   by   both  houfes,   (in  \^hich,   unlefs  wc 
ihould    except    one    or  .two,    there    were  no   cpifco- 
pal    members)    and  readily  figned    by   the  G/overnor  ; 
taking^,  in  all    Proteftant  denominations,,    Episcopa- 
XiANs  by  name  :     And    the  whole  was  done  ef  their 
own  mcer  motion,  under  the  infucnce  of  candor,  ho- 
nour, and  a  becoming  ftnfe  of  ihc  regard  that  oui^ht  to 
be  paid  to  the  rule  of  right,  without  partiality.   /Epif- 
^co^wl   applications  \iziz  no:  needed^  npr  v^'trc  tb^y 


ym  APPENDIX. 

made.      The  z6ky  wherein  it  is  necefiary  It  fhould  be 
xccitcd,  is  as  follows, 

'  IVHERE/IS  many  grants  and  donations  have  heretofore 
Veen  made  by  fundry  vuell-dlfpofed  perfons^  in  and  by  fuch 
exprejfions  ana  terms  as  plainly  Jhovj  it  "was  the  intent  and 
fxpctiation  of  fuch  grantors  an4  donors^  that  their  feveral 
grants  and  donations  pruld'  take  effcci  jo  as  that  the 
ijlates  granted  Jhould  go  in  fucceffizn  :  But  doubts  have 
4srifen  in  tuhat  cafes  fuch  donations  and  grants  inay  ope- 
ratty  fo  as  to  go  in  fuccrffion  : 

For  aicertaining  whereof : 

«  Be  it  en-sftcd  bv  the  GovrRNOR,  Coun^cil,  2nd 
Jioufe  of  Representatives,  That  the  Deacons  o( 
all  the  feveral  Proteliant  chur-ches,  not  being  epifcopal 
churches,  2nd  the  Church  IVardens  of  the  feveral  epij- 
€  op  a!  churches  ^  arc,  and  /lisll'  be,  deemed  fo  far  bodies 
corporate,  as  to  take  \i\  fuccejjion.  all  grants  and  donations, 
ivheiher  real  or  perfonal,  made  either  to  their  feveral 
churches,  x\-\z  pcbr  of  tijeir  churches,  or  to  thlm  and 
their  •uccffibrs,  and  tofueand  QlZ.{t\'^<^  in  ail  actions  touch- 
ing the  fanse;  and  wherever  die  Minifters, Elders  or  VeOry 
fnalliafuch  original  grant?  or  donations  have  been  joined 
v/ith  fuch  D  aeons  or  Churchwardens  as  donees  or  gran- 
tees in  faccellion,  in  fuch  cafes  fuch  ofHcefs  and  their 
iuccflTors,  together  v/ith  the  De icons  or  Church  War- 
dens, fhall  be  deemed  the  corporation  for  fuch  purpofes 
as  afofcfaid.  And  t):\z  Minirter  or  Minifters  of  the  fe- 
veral protef^^nt  churches  of  whatever  denomination, 
are  and  Ihail  be  de-med  capable  6f  taking  in  fucce'lTion 
ar^y  parfonage  land,  or  lands  granted  to  theMjnifler  and 
bis  iucc^fTors,  or  to  the  life  ot  the Minifrer?,  sncoffuing 
and  (lefending  all  afti!">r:s  touching  the  fame ;  favin^ 
that  nothin;T  m  this  i^cl  mall  4)6  cjnitrued  to  make  void 
anv  final  ju-^graent  of  any  court  of  common  law  or 
Judge  of  probate  j  faving  alfo,  that  no  alienation  of  any 
)?.n(k  b/eiongin^  to  churches  hereatter  macle  by  the 
D'^r^cons  without  the  con'fent  of  the  church  or  a  com- 
nrttee  of  the  church  io.x  that  purpofe  appointed,  or  by 
Church  Wardens  v/ithout  the  confcnt  of  the  Veflry, 
fliali  be  fulH^ient  to  pafs  the  fame.  And  that  no 
alicnatioT  her-nfter  mide  by  Miniftcrs  of  lands  by  them 
held  ill  fucctiTiC'n  lb  all  be  valid  any  longer  than  during 
•    •  ■  fuch 


APPENDIX;      ,         ML 

fuel:  al'iencr*  continuing  Minifters,  unlcfs  fuch  Mini-^ 
ftcrs  be  Miniftcrs  of  particular  Towns,  Diftrifts,  or 
Prccfn6ls,  and  make  fuch  alienation  with  the  confent 
or  fuch  Towns,  Diftri<5ts,  or  Precin^ls,  or  unlefs  fuch 
Minifters  roalieningbeMinifters  of  Epifcopal  Churches, 
aad  the  fame  be  done  with  the  confent  of  the  Vcftry*.— 

H AT>  EpifcopaUans  at  New- York  been  in  the  exercife 
of  like  candor  and  impartiality  with  Non-epifcopalians  in 
this  Province,  their  Prefbyterian  brethren  would  have 
met  with  no  difficulty  in  obtaining,  from  the  Govern- 
ment there,  the  charter  they  defired  :  Nor,  had  they 
fent  no  ungenerous  unfriendly  reprefentations  to  dig- 
nified Clergymen  at  home,  is  it  in  the  leaft  probable 
the  King  would  hive  rejected  the  petition  they  made 
to  him.  As  there  was  no  epifcopal  oppoiirion  to  thi 
MaJfachufetU  G5i^  it  readily  obtained  the  King's  fiat. 
And  there  is  no  reafon  to  think,  but  he  would  as  rea- 
dily have  granted  the  charier  petitioned  for,  by  the 
Nev/-York  Prcfbyterians,  as  it  meant  precifely  the 
fime  thing  with  the  Majfachufetts-a^^  had  not  epifco- 
palian  Yoriccrs,  in  council,  or  out  of  council,  or  both, 
tranfmitted  fuch  illiberal  accounts, to  great  men  inEng- 
iandjas  excited  their  zeal,  and  urged  them  on  to  endea- 
vours to  bring  this  petition  to  naught. 

It  is  to  be  hoped,  the  generous  candor,  and  impar- 
tial jufticc,  exemplified  by  the  non-epifcopal  MafTa- 
chufetts-Province,  will  have  fome  good  efFc£l:  upon 
Epifcopalians  in  the  other  Colonies.  It  is  powerfully 
adapted  to  fuch  a  purpofe  ;  and  cannot  well  fail,  if  duly 
cor)fidered,of  putting  to  fhame  that  narrownefs  of  fpirir, 
that  bigotry  of  fentiment,  and  party-partiality,  which 
are  inconfiftent  with  a  freedom  m  doing  to  others,  as 
we  wou!d  they  fliould  do  to  us.  It  may  reafenably  be 
expeded,  the  noble  example  of  undiftinguifhed  can- 
dor and  goodnefs,  that  has  been  brought  to  view,  will 
engage  the  New -York  Epifcopalians,  from  a  fenfe  of 
honour,  fricndlinefs,  impartiality,  and  jufticc,  heaitily 
to  join  with  the  Prefbytenans  there  in  endeavours,  that 
they  may  be  put  upon  the  fams  equitable  footing  with 
themfelves,  by  bein^  favoured  v/;th  a  charter  of  incor- 
poration for  the  temporalities  of  their  church.  Unlefs 
there  fhould  be  the  dhcovery  of  fuch  a  temper  and  con- 
dud 


X  APPENDIX. 

du6l,  in  vain  it  will  be  (o  expsS:,  that  our  fears,  ref- 
peding  the  propofed  American  Epifcopate,  {hould  be 
Sienccd.  IfEpifcopalians  of  inferior  ftation,  and  com- 
paratively fmall  importance,  can,  by  handing  accounts 
to  dignitaries  at  home,  efFc£t  fuch  mifchief  to  the  other 
denominations,  what  may  not  be  feared  from  the  in- 
liuence  of  Biftiopsj  refiding  in  the  Colonies  ! 


■ii':^^trJf0-^:^ 


»*-!^^^::^r%^^  T'' 5'-^ • 


;;y^^.v- 


Arlington 

(Eljnrrli 

ffiibrarg 

*  * 
(gift  of 


S^ 


^li 


f 


-   .V"*f  fCf J 


,'  "-wm  ('■■ 


m 


'■'.f-sr- 


